Days: February 2023 Discussion Thread

[janea4old]

Here is their "about" page:
https://televisionstats.com/about

Quote: Since direct viewer data isn't available, we look at audience activity across the Internet. By seeing how engaged and active an audience is, we can get a clear look into the popularity and success of individual TV shows. We can then compare those shows across networks and streamers. End quote.

It doesn't say how they gather their data.
Are there scientific methods to measure "audience activity across the Internet"?
What is that? The number of times things are mentioned on google, in blogs, on social media?  in comments replying to articles? 
I don't mind reading data, but I just want to know its source.

Regardless, what viewers say online is does not reflect the vast majority of viewers ... who don't talk about their shows online.

Edited February 5, 2023 by janea4old

[Contessa Donatella]

Absolutely. I think restricting itself to online viewers only is an automatic limitation. But, it is possible to gather data on online viewers where there's no tools for a barometer of, say, the real world "water cooler". And streaming has said all along that the buzz that is created by shows is something that they are interested in, so there is an element of consistency. I wish, as do many, that we had more & better metrics available, but we simply do not. 

[janea4old]

Neilsen does measure streaming but I don't know enough to discuss it.
Perhaps @Toups could create an article on how Days performs on Peacock?

Edited February 5, 2023 by janea4old

[victoria foxton]

 

  

[TEdgeofNight]

You cause chaos Donna. I should listen to the messages that I receive about you. You post incorrect facts as a career. To stay on topic, Days is not #1 or #2 constantly on Peacock according to Neilsen. I'll take Nielsen's word over yours. 

[Contessa Donatella]

As you should, of course. You'll be pleased to know that I place no value on any of your words since I know so many of them to be bald-faced lies. As to topicality, I could only reiterate my fond wish that we should ignore each other. That way we would be in a permanent state of ON TOPIC. 

[KLN]

Right?

Please register in order to view this content

The way the ladies reacted I expected to see CGI Stefano there. Or Daniel Jonas.

I wish someone other than Jordan was there to "judge" Kate in purgatory. Maybe Franco or Curtis. I just don't care about Jordan.

These glowing devil eyes look dumb (same with the contacts they used last year -- I miss the pale ghostly eyes they used in '94/'95, Marlena looked HAUNTING!) and Ron's "devil" is petty but it'll be fun to see Nick again. I just don't understand why it's him and not a more prolific villain.

Edited February 5, 2023 by KLN

[j swift]

The one idea that has stuck with me during the mildly entertaining purgatory story is that without including some discussion about Abigail in the after-life, this plot seems incomplete.  I mean once Kayla returns from the dead, shouldn't Jack and Chad be pissed that she didn't bring Abby with her?  And shouldn't the ladies have some moral quandary about returning from the dead when a mother of two young children remains behind?

In that universe, perhaps Abby is in heaven, so they won't run into her.  But, we need some exposition about why certain recent deaths are reversible and others are not.  Otherwise, the co-existing story about Chad moving on with Stephanie seems odd.

Also, I know we probably won't see this degree of insight, but imagine how a doctor like Kayla would function after she knew that death was reversible?  That would be a interesting twist, if Kayla becomes either more callous or more risky  knowing that there are no vital consequences to illnesses or accidents in the hospital.  However, we all know that by spring she'll have completely forgotten that she was ever dead.

Edited February 5, 2023 by j swift

[Soapsuds]

Kenny mentioned how quickly they all got sick and died. How about Kayla? She was doing her rounds and they wanted to do blood work. She resisted saying she was fine but finally agreed. A few moments later she's told her numbers had dropped. She's like I'm fine and boom she collapsed.

Please register in order to view this content

 

[TEdgeofNight]

ON topic. It's not normal for a 70+ year old woman to be obsessed with Challie - teenagers. I dislike Challie and anything to do with them. Thank GOD they are no more!!!

[Contessa Donatella]

I think it is perfectly usual for any soap fan of any age to have any characters or couples they like as part of their fandom. And, it is certainly acceptable to be interested in Doug & Julie and Challie and any age in between. Me & DOOL I am high on Doug & Julie, Challie, Steve & Kayla, John & Marlena, Cady McClain as Jennifer Rose, Abe & Paulina, Chad, even more. Of course, I think it is particularly usual & definitely acceptable for a lesbian to be into Challie, regardless of age! I would never think of chastising someone for who they were fans of. That's as bad as calling names. Who set you up as judge & jury of who someone can be fans of? I must've missed that memo. Topically speaking I'm a fan of about 90% of Salem & not a fan of about 4 characters. 

[AbcNbc247]

That’s part of the problem too lol 

Ron admitted in interviews that he sees the devil just like any other villain. That’s why I’m afraid that the devil’s now just gonna pop up once a year for a little while to be a pain in the ass, just like Orpheus, Clyde and Jan. 

[Contessa Donatella]

Gosh, I hope not. But, I definitely hear what you're saying. Fear it, ... dread it. 

[Noel]

I think Satan went into the office of Melinda Trask or whatever the hell her name is. Yep. Stole that damn mask and it's now the re-birth, re-re-birth, and re-re-re-birth of ..... The Mask.

[KLN]

Ron speeds through story like a hedgehog on meth lol. I don't get it.

Wouldn't it be in his interest to slow down so he doesn't burn through material so fast?

Like... take a day off.

Edited February 6, 2023 by KLN