Ratings from the 80's

[Paul Raven]

Interesting that from 1975 (when AW expanded)on, there was never any suggestion that any of the networks entertained the idea of cutting a 60 min show back to 30 mins.

[Broderick]

Maybe.  I'm not sure.  I believe a certain portion of the public saw Search for Tomorrow as a "write-off" as early as 1980.   That's based on my own personal experience, not a scientific survey, lol.  

I remember being a kid in study hall in the spring of 1980 and overhearing some much older high school kids discussing the impending demise of Search for Tomorrow.   They were all sitting around a table whispering (while they were SUPPOSED to be studying), and I was in a desk nearby.   One of the older kids asked, "What's been happening on Love of Life?  I haven't been watching lately because of basketball practice and softball practice."   (Love of Life came on late in the afternoon -- after school -- and some of the older kids watched it in sort of a half-assed manner.)  The response, of course, was that Love of Life had fatally bitten the dust back in February.   NOOOOOO, WHYYYY?  One of the more "television savvy" kids explained that Y&R had expanded to an hour in early February, forcing Love of Life off the air.  This was met with much remorse by the sporadic Love of Life viewers who weren't aware the show had been cancelled during basketball season.

This led to a long conversation at the table about Search for Tomorrow's odds of survival.  The older kids who were following the entire CBS line-up seemed to be aware that the new "trend" was either (a) expand to an hour or (b) get cancelled.  Much discussion followed about Y&R, ATWT, and GL all being a full hour now, and Search for Tomorrow still being a half-hour show.  Someone pointed out that SFT and LOL were "old shows" that had been around since the early 1950s, both were trapped in the half-hour format, and one of the two (Love of Life) had recently been given the axe.   The gist of it was that everyone at the table was in agreement that Search for Tomorrow was living on borrowed time in 1980.

I certainly wouldn't presume to suggest that all CBS viewers had that attitude toward SFT in 1980, but it was fairly sobering to hear eight or ten teenagers predict that the show would be gone from the CBS line-up in the next year or so.  And sure enough, about two years later, it was GONE.   I do think it would be safe to say that many CBS viewers probably DID see the cancellation of Love of Life as a harbinger of SFT's upcoming demise, especially with the schedule shuffling that soon followed, putting SFT in a strange, awkward slot several hours past its customary broadcast time.   The message to the viewers seemed to be, "We're not too vested in this one anymore."     

Edited July 9, 2021 by Broderick

[pdm1974]

After ratings fell by almost half following the move to NBC, SFT did see a small increase in ratings for two years. It's a shame they couldn't sustain it, because if they kept moving in an upwards direction NBC would have probably given it more time. 

[Max]

My sincerest apologies for this very belated response. I loved reading your amusing story, especially the part about how your classmates were discussing soaps during study hall when they should have been studying.

You make a good point about how, circa 1980, it appeared that the trend was either to expand to 60 minutes or face cancellation. Certainly, the perception was that the 30-minute soaps were the weaker ones. Interestingly enough, this perception persisted through the late-90s, even though B&B had been a highly successful soap for many years by that point.

Had SFT remained on CBS and expanded to an hour, and if it was posting solid ratings in the 1986-87 Season, the show's prospects for survival into the 90s may very well have nevertheless been shaky. As another poster here (I cannot recall exactly who) stated, SFT was not a family show the way that ATWT, GL, and AW were. If I am not mistaken, this poster went onto say that Mary Stuart's talent and charisma were enough to sustain SFT until the early-80s, but the show needed a younger generation of characters--tied to legacy families--in order to continue to remain competitive in the ratings. (If I am misrepresenting what this poster wrote, I apologize.) SFT's writers certainly erred in killing off too many characters who were part of Jo's family (including her sister, Eunice). I don't have the time to research the familial ties of Stu Bergman, but the comments written about about Mary Stuart and Jo also apply to Larry Haines and Stu. Although Liza was Stu's granddaughter, there still needed to be more of a core family structure surrounding Stu by the time the early-80s rolled around.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Max

[slick jones]

They tried twice with grandson Danny and with a few Tom's in the late 70s/early 80s. They would have been better off casting David Forsyth as Tom and Matt Ashford as Danny, which could have shored up Stu's family.  I would have grabbed Lisby Larsen in 1982 when they announced Texas' cancellation for Patty.

[Paul Raven]

Interesting ideas re casting. But that is a story often told, even today - actors playing new characters when viable family members remain off camera.

Stu had a daughter Janet and then Gary,Liza and Danny as grandchildren -enough for a solid core.

Jo had Patti and her 2 kids who could have been sorased to teens.

And imagine if a man came to town who turned out to be her son Duncan,who was switched at birth...

[Broderick]

I'd have to agree that the lack of "family structure" made SFT difficult to follow for the casual viewer (like me).   Whatever summer I broke my leg in the late 1970s, I saw about a month's worth of it, and it was bewildering to understand who the characters were.   During that time, Travis & Liza Sentell were the "action and adventure centerpieces" of the show, and were apt to be seen sporting around on a location shot in a beautiful  Cadillac Eldorado convertible.  It was easy to gather that the old man (Stu) was Liza's grandfather, and it was also easy to absorb that Travis Sentell had a dead mother named for a piece of steak (Mignon?) whose drawling brother (Martin) was married to the old-timey main star played by Mary Stuart.  But in a solid month of watching, that's about all that I could gather from it.  There was an old guy named Ted who seemed to barely know the others, and there was a character named Stephanie who also wandered in and out with no evident connection.  Liza had a mother, but she mostly interacted with the strangers instead of the core characters.  There were a lot of other "loose ends" -- Renata, Sunny, etal.  I realize that a new viewer who wanted to understand the show could've asked someone who all those people were, but for a channel surfer, there was a definite confusion and disjointedness about it that didn't tend to generate much interest.  Now the same thing was true of "Edge of Night" (no real family structure), but it was EASY to pick-up on, because everyone was clearly a detective, an attorney, a DA, or a criminal, and with that format, it didn't matter whether they had a family unit or not.      

[dc11786]

@Broderick I believe you are talking about the summer of 1979. Your comment about the looseness of the canvas would make sense. John and Joyce Corrington were the headwriters at the time. They can write some very enjoyable soap opera, but they were not always great about keeping connected characters interacting. On their own show "Texas," they often kept members of the Marshall family in segmented parts of the canvas. Also, the Dekkers also had a tendency not interact enough as a family. I'm curious if this was a "Search for Tomorrow" isuse or a writer's issue. 

With that said, "Search for Tomorrow" also had a tendency to keep characters even after their connections faded. I'm always surprised how long David Sutton stays on for example. 

 

[jam6242]

From the July 11, 1982, Des Moines Register.

Please register in order to view this content

[Pine Charles]

Wow.

Even EON was performing better than AW.

[beebs]

I have to wonder what happened at GH in March '82, because they'd been consistently netting 11.0+ for months at that point, and suddenly, in the span of that one month, the show dropped into the 9.0s, and stayed there more of less for the rest of the year. I suspect it's likely down to Genie Francis' departure, but if anyone else has more insight...

[vetsoapfan]

Genie Francis left, Pat Falken Smith was replaced by dreadful hack writers, and science fiction garbage was the name of the game. The show was cringeworthy. IMHO.

GH was lucky that AW was too weak at the time to offer solid competition and steal viewers away, but TGL was great!

Edited August 19, 2021 by vetsoapfan

[will81]

In 1981 there were rumours though about ATWT. I do wonder if during this time, despite denials, if CBS ever seriously considered it for any of their current soaps

 

Please register in order to view this content

Edited August 19, 2021 by will81

[Franko]

Re-reading the summaries from March 1982 -- https://www.angelfire.com/tv/curlyqgrl/gh/eps/gheps1982.htm -- it seems like GH was treading water. There were five major stories going on. What happened to Laura? Will Alan and Monica divorce? Will Anne and Noah realize Dr. Bradshaw committed malpractice? Will Heather get the upper hand on everyone, particularly Dr. Katz? And trouble involving the waterfront/Sportscenter (i.e. Scotty, Blackie, Rick, etc.). I think things picked up from July onward, when Laura was determined as "really dead," Emma Samms joined as Holly, you had Susan/Scotty/Heather, and such on. Anyway, I'll bet it was a combination of the plodding storyline plus the natural fizzling out of a ratings high that led to GH's dramatic drop in March '82.

 

[jam6242]

This is a follow-up column analyzing the issues for GH.

 

Please register in order to view this content