Did the focus on appealing to housewives kill US Soaps?

[Faulkner]

You might be right. After all, GH had been on cancellation watch prior to that era, so who knows what may have happened. I think there was definitely an early ‘80s bubble that burst, and, in a new economic reality, these shows were left trying to figure out how to move forward with an audience trained on a certain ‘80s excess. We have had some great drama since 1990, but so much of it was painful, demeaning, and desperate that sometimes you wish that they’d gone off the air with some dignity.

You know, we’ve all trained ourselves to think of Y&R as this dominant No. 1 soap, floating unscathed above it all, lapping all the other shows in viewers, especially when Bill Bell was still at the helm. But going back and looking at what really mattered, the demos, in the ‘90s, it was VERY tight. Many months Y&R was No. 1 in the demo, but maybe a tenth of a point ahead of GH, DAYS, or AMC. And many months DAYS and GH would be on top despite having far fewer total viewers. So it was always competitive, so I can understand the pressure going back as far as Peter Bergman’s hiring.

[Sindacco]

DAYS was/is pretty popular in several North European countries. In Sweden they alot of times had better ratings than B&B despite being at a worse timeslot. Sunset Beach was also pretty popular, and even had reruns in the summers of 2003 and 2004 which is rare for soaps. Y&R and GH didn't really catch on despite attempts by different channels. Although the last time GH aired here, I don't think they were given a fair chance.

 

When DAYS was taken off regular TV broadcasting at the end of 2014, it was the second most watched show on TV3. Beating alot of prime time shows in the ratings despite airing at 9 am. Since Jan 2015 it is available for online streaming with seven new episodes posted every Monday.

[j swift]

I was watching DAYS and thought, who would be an aspirational character for an 18-25 year old woman at home at 1:00 in 2018?

 

I assume at some point ad execs thought that by having aspirational characters it would inspire women to buy products to emulate those characters.  However, among the current crop of Salemites, who would deserve aspiration?  Abby and Gabi are ex-cons who have to rely on men for shelter and emotional support; so they don't seem like good candidates.  Some characters have been enviable because of their love lives but I don't think anyone would envy Lani and the fact that she just sacrificed months of her life (and career) to carry a baby for a guy who she didn't respect enough to tell wasn't the biological father.  Jennifer and Marlena have given up all motivations for career advancement in order to plan their umpteenth weddings, as if they are virgin brides; so they're out.

 

Even Hope Williams (whose gorgeous hair made me want a fountain of Prell shampoo), seems stuck in a career in criminal justice; even though she seemed much happier owning a cosmetics company.  The woman who proudly wore the moniker of "Princess" from Doug and Bo, (and whatever country Gina was from) doesn't seem like she is living a life that would inspire an 18-25 year old to do much.  In fact, the past decade feels like Hope is paying penance for her vein youth by having to appear in coveralls more often than ballgowns.  If I were 18-25, I would not want to think that I had to give up all access to familial wealth and privilege in order to be happy with men who grew up under less fortunate circumstances (I know its a total tangent but doesn't Hope still have some Ben Olsen cash laying around?; she was rich as a teen).

 

My point is that if soaps are trying to attract an 18-25 audience, I don't see anything attractive for them.  There's nobody to fantasize about being because all of the women seem miserable, they never have sex, and they never have career achievements

[Soaplovers]

 

I will agree with this... I recall in the late 80s, Jennifer had ambition and career aspirations.  She wanted to be a journalist/writer.. and Jack told her that she had potential, but had a lot to learn before she'd be taken seriously as a journalist.. even dismissing her as being a rich girl with a hobby.  The Jennifer of than became bound and determined to prove Jack and others wrong.. and that was one of the elements that made the character popular.. her career aspirations, her ambition, and not being the typical good girl that weeps at every turn.  Eve vs Jennifer was so memorable back than because Eve also had ambition, but of a different variety.  

 

I don't see the youthful females of today on DAYS having that ambition.. I often wonder if that is due to not feeling they have anything to prove?  

[Pine Charles]

Yes, we often forget the 18 -49 demo is what’s most important to advertisers ($$$).

I believe All My Children was #1 in that demo from about 1992 - 1995 (before being dethroned by Days of our Lives).

I love to see the retro HH ratings, but I’d love to see retro demo figures even more.

I’m sure those are incredibly hard to come by. 

[Paul Raven]

SOW published demos as well as HH

Wk of Jan 2-6 1995

HH

1. Y&R 8.2 /26

2. AMC 6.6/20

3.GH 6.3/20

4. DOOL 6.2/18

5. B&B 6.1/18

6. OLTL 5.7/18

7. ATWT 5.2/17

8. GL 4.8/15

9. AW 3.7/12

10. LOV 2.7/9

 

W 18 - 49

1. AMC 6.1/29

2. Y&R 5.4/27

3. DOOL 5.1/24

4. GH 4.9/25

4. OLTL 4.9/25

6. B&B 3.4/16

7. ATWT 3.3/17

8. GL 3.2/16

9. AW 2.7/14

10. LOV 1.9/10

[j swift]

Upon reflection, isn't it bizarre that ratings have always been a part of soap press reporting? 

 

Personally, I have never cared about how many people were watching the same tv show or movie that I was watching.  News stories about how much a movie made or a tv show rated always seemed silly.  I've never asked how much my local retail store took in over the weekend. nor how many books were sold this month, nor how much my plumber made in 2007.  Through osmosis I know that last year twice as many people viewed Eileen Davidson on Young and the Restless during the day as viewed her that evening on the RHoBH reunion but the key demographic was larger in proportion to the total audience on Bravo than CBS; yet I don't want to know that information.

 

My hypothesis is that ratings stories take up print space and make good click bait because it gives the audience a stake in the performance of the show.  Similarly to how some conservative news sources use the terms 'us' and 'we' a lot to inspire brand loyalty.  I re-read Soap World and even thirty years ago there were stories about soap ratings woes; at a time when soap ratings were obviously much higher than they are today. 

 

However, the reality is that I don't need to know how a show rates in order to estimate its quality or my enjoyment.  Ratings are one part of much larger equity structure for network soaps including streaming and foreign sale.  Ratings are used to determine ad value not because they randomly sample the entire population, (or even represent the entire scope of an audience), they are useful in determining the proportion of the audience that is likely to be influenced by ads. 

 

Thus, it would be difficult to correlate ratings with total audience reaction to a story (as those stories often imply) because ratings are not meant to measure the entire audience; only those that are being targeted by the ads matter.  And not just in the age demo, e.g., ratings samples only measure people with access to certain types of cable packages and those that subscribe to newspapers because that is the information important to people buying ads, but not to those consuming ads.   Of the millions of variables that could effect ratings fluctuations, (including more live local and cable news coverage, increased employment, and the weather), I would bet that immediate audience reaction accounts for less than a percentage point of the variability.

 

I also am not narcissistic enough to be angry that my single-gay-middle-aged-affluent homelife is not being targeted by network advertisers.   I know that I live in a niche environment and I don't expect P&G to spend millions to make a paper towel especially for my lifestyle.  I don't find issues about lack of representation in mainstream soaps compelling because there is so much less patronizing material available.  Because of this availability I find myself less willing to try to empathize with characters who could have been objects of projection in the past.  In other words, I don't need bitchy women in fur coats to play out my fantasies of speaking truth to power or fighting hypocrisy when I can see the real gay representation in other forms of media.    

 

Soaps continue to be profitable.  However, I have never heard a valid argument as to the informative value of reporting on a soap's ratings to those who watch it and I refuse to believe that it is an accurate indicator of audience reaction to the weekly plotlines of a soap.

 

[DramatistDreamer]

People in the industry seem exasperated, even furious with Netflix for not publishing the ratings on some of their popular shows like House of Cards...I mean, so?

Please register in order to view this content

Netflix is a subscriber based platform, there are no sponsors to try to lure and keep.  Why is it critical that they release their viewing figures??

 

The original Hulu did quite well with viewer engagement with the use of targeted ads.  The only reason why they changed to a subscription model is because they wanted to delve into producing original content, which can be very expensive.

 

I do think that soaps never learned how to adjust their model for how they engage advertisers.  Nielsen still doesn't know how to properly tabulate DVR views and even though more people are watching quality content online, the ad buy rate for online is still vastly undervalued compared to broadcast rates.

[Juliajms]

Netflix has released some interesting information lately about how they decide to renew shows.  They also said that if you look at the IMDB list of most popular shows you can get a pretty good idea which of their shows preform the best. 

 

I guess I just tend to be the curious type when it comes to these things, but I found this article interesting.  If you love a show the best thing you can do to help it be renewed is watch the whole thing in a month.

http://www.vulture.com/2018/06/how-netflix-swallowed-tv-industry.html

[j swift]

Perhaps but, it still doesn't answer the question as to why soap ratings have been such a concern for soap fans and soap press for such a long time?  I don't think sci fi fans discuss ratings and I rarely hear sports fans discussing demographics.  So, why have soap fans always been so interested in data that does not inform the soap viewing experience?

[DramatistDreamer]

 

It's a bit "Inside Baseball" isn't it? 

 

Just to speak for myself, I never cared one whit about ratings until I got onto soap messageboards. From there it seemed to be a metric put out there from soap "media" including those soap magazines.  From my observation, I think it is a preoccupation handed down from soap media (perhaps to get people to watch, for fear of cancellation of their favorite soaps?) to soap fans.

It's like spoilers, before I got onto messageboards, my only source of spoilers was an occasional glance at the soap section of the TV Guide.

 

I just wonder whether fans who are not online, those who don't frequent messageboards or blogs are as preoccupied with ratings as those who are?  

[Faulkner]

For me, I was obsessed with data even before the web because the magazines always listed the weekly ratings, and they’d include commentary about what stories coincided with ratings spikes or plunges. They didn’t include demos when I was reading, which probably gave me a false sense of Y&R’s ratings dominance, as the demos were much more competitive.

 

I think a lot of it is that soaps have been on a deathwatch for 20-25 years, and the ratings have been a way of monitoring it, like looking at the labs for a sick patient. 

[j swift]

The point I was making in an earlier post is that reporting on ratings as an indicator of audience response is based on a spurious correlation.  Fluctuations in audience ratings are due to an ever increasing number of variables and audience response has probably never accounted for a significant portion in the variance.  It is like an urban legend that was created by soap editors in the 1980's when they first started publishing ratings and never verified.  However, Phyllis Diller isn't Susan Lucci's mom and ratings don't measure an audience's response to the quality of weekly plot lines.

 

Ratings discussions often focus on how they do not reflect the views of the entire audience.  However, an increase in programming choices has led to a predictable erosion because minority audiences (who are neither valued by ratings nor catered to by network productions) no longer need to relay on "big tent" entertainment to show an approximation of their stories. 

 

I believe that those of us not covered by ratings such as gay men, women of color, and gender nonconforming viewers of 2018 would find it patronizing to try to find their similarities with characters like Erica Kane; like I did in my youth.  Erica's story mirrored the experience of gay men, (she felt different and longed for acceptance), but I don't think 18-25 audiences want entertainment by analogy, (or to have their personal dramas told by patriarchal writers), when they can tell their own stories all over youtube.  

 

It doesn't mean that I am not still fascinated by soap cannon, it is just that current productions seem so anachronistic.

[Faulkner]

The soaps gave up a long time ago. They are just maintaining their dwindling, literally dying audience for as long as possible until they can’t slash budgets anymore. They are comfort food for folks who enjoy kitschy nostalgia while paying very trivial lip service to trends. Everyone can find a show for themselves these shows if they look hard enough, and we just don’t “need” Y&R or GH anymore. And you know what? That’s cool. I sometimes wish soaps had ‘70s-quality writing applied to 2018 issues and demographics, but “Insecure” is on tonight so...

 

Really, who knows where broadcast TV as a whole will be in 10 years? Look how desperate ABC has been with the Oscars, forcing them to create some BS “Best Popular Film” award because of how ratings have trended. Live sports is hemorrhaging viewers. The whole ship is sinking, and daytime soaps just happened to be one of first parts to be submerged.

 

But it’s always sad when these shared experiences die. I don’t like seeing everyone in their little bubbles.

[Wendy]

The only sad observation I have from those ratings from January 1995 is that, by today's standards, the bottom 3 would be at the top in terms of current ratings. I knew viewership had eroded badly. I just never realized by how much until looking at these.

 

Adding to that, the budgets for the remaining soaps - GH especially - look especially cheap. How long until the scenery will be drawn by crayon with a single light bulb to light the scene?