Jump to content

Ratings from the 80's


Paul Raven

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Why was CBS so quick to get rid of Search for Tomorrow?  Based on the late 1981-82 ratings, SFT ratings were on par with its lead-in As the World Turns, sometimes even getting better ratings than ATWT.  CBS really mishandled this situation.  I can't believe that P&G was too happy having ATWT being the lowest rated soap on CBS either,  or Another World's steep decline and the expensive flop that Texas became on NBC during this same time period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wonder what might have happened if The Edge of Night had moved to ABC in September 1975 instead of December 1975 and had secured the 3:30 time slot with the same affiliate clearances as the other ABC soaps.  Where might they have been in 1981-1982?  They were almost neck and neck with As the World Turns and Search for Tomorrow in January 1982. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

That's good question. Interestingly enough during the Corrington era of SFT CBS had actually flirted with the idea of expanding SFT to an hour as the show was rejuvenated at the time and Bell was very against the notion Y&R going to an hour length. The Y&R and SFT relationship was interesting in this time period; SFT benefited from Y&R as a lead-in in many markets, yet Y&R benefited being sandwiched between SFT and ATWT in many other markets as since CBS didn't program the 1:00ET/12:00CT/PT time slot, many markets who wanted a Noon newscast just simply delayed Y&R for that slot. 

 

I've never been able to pinpoint who was to blame for SFT's cancellation at CBS.  P&G blamed CBS and said that SFT lost ratings and fairing badly in the 2:30 slot but reality of the numbers says different. CBS blamed P&G saying P&G only wanted to SFT in the 12:30PM ET slot. Bell actually had another soap in the works as early as 1976; it was mentioned as a Y&R spinoff but whether or not this was his RAGS soap is not clear. The only winner in the situation was Bill Bell himself, mainly because Jon Conboy was now off his soap right after Conboy had threatened to fire Bell from his own soap. 

That makes it a lot clearer, there were a LOT of proposed soaps for CBS in the early '80's that never panned out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm now wondering what would have happened if NBC kept SFT at the 2:30 slot (where it was doing better than legend has it) rather than airing it at 12:30. Imagine, if you will:

 

12:00 -- DOCTORS (Since NBC seemed determined to kill it off, anyway)

12:30 -- TEXAS (Still likely to die opposite Y&R and AMC; a more noble fate than falling to TPIR?)

1:30 -- DOOL (OTOH, it doesn't seem like the best lead-in for SFT)

2:30 -- SFT (I'm liking the idea of OLTL leading, while the stable veteran dukes it out with the cocky upstart)

3:00 -- AW (Who knows if it could have gained some of the success GL supposedly did during GH's mid-80s hiccup?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I remember a Bill Bell interview where he mentioned CBS approached him around 1977 about having a second show on the network's daytime lineup. If a second Bell show was ready to air in 1977 instead of 1987, I wonder where it would've gone on the lineup. I don't think Search for Tomorrow was in cancel territory in 1977 and I read elsewhere that Love of Life made a bit of a comeback ratings wise during the mid 1970s. I know CBS expanded Guiding Light to one hour in 1977 so the half hour that went to GL may have gone to a second Bell show instead.

 

What are your thoughts on Capitol? In my mind B&B was the intended replacement for Search for Tomorrow, Capitol was a placeholder/time filler until B&B was ready. It's hard to believe that B&B has had a longer run on CBS than Search for Tomorrow did.

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   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Thank you for the constructive suggestion. 
    • But how is it "apparent" that she signed a new 3-year contract? Your wording had a voice of authority -- as if you knew it was true. A better way to post about it? Say you read online that she signed a new contract, but have no idea if that's true.
    • This interview actually reminds me a bit of Kim Zimmer’s press during the infamous clone storyline on Guiding Light, or Deidre Hall during the possession story on Days. All three were seasoned daytime veterans who made it clear they valued airtime for their characters, not just being part of a romantic pairing. It seems that idea was part of the pitch behind these bigger-than-life plots. They all took big swings in their performances. When I read Kim Zimmer’s memoir, I thought she captured it best — she wanted to be respected for being willing to take those risks. To paraphrase her, she knew it was ridiculous for Reva to think she was pregnant after menopause, but she still threw herself into those scenes and made them real. That’s what really struck me about Victoria Wyndham’s interview too. She responded like a real person. It felt like she was telling Michael Logan that she knew Justine — and a geriatric pregnancy with twins — was totally preposterous, but that she still deserved credit for trying to keep the show alive and entertain the audience. And honestly, I think that's more than fair. Logan is looking for a reductive answer for who is to blame.  And, she's telling him to accept that they were all well-meaning.  Which is not a defense of bad storytelling.  But, I understand that she's frustrated because she interpreted Logan's critique as a lack of commitment, and she wants him to know that she was committed! (maybe not for the best, but committed).
    • Fine, you only had to say so. It's not a problem to me NOT to post this. I have no idea what this means. 
    • Oh, really? I think we're really getting close.  What does "apparently" mean to you? To me, it means that this is something I think has happened but not something I absolutely positively know to have happened. When I use a word like "apparently" as I have here, I am doing so by intent. Can you think of a better way to communicate that?
    • Wow...I was not expecting a montage.   I know SilkPress did not!!! Poor Eva.  Lol. Funnily enough I missed that.     
    • For the record, VW thought having the twins at their ages was absurd & who wanted that story, was some group of fans, who wanted her & Carl to have a chance at having children together. Not any fans that I knew of, but supposedly they existed. 
    • Brandon Tartikoff saved NBC primetime. Brandon Stoddard got ABC Tuesday to rebound and put an end to the Aaron Spelling hit factory.
    • Awwwww Brad. I know I shouldn't, but I feel bad for him 

      Please register in order to view this content

      And yeah, agreed that Dante having animosity towards Gio is very forced and contrived. And it also has me concerned that it means the reveal won't be happening anytime soon.
    • God, I love that woman. Another amazing interview!!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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