|Hello, soap fans -- and welcome to Daytime Royalty!|
For those unfamiliar, we are an uncensored community for fans and lovers of the daytime genre. We have a no-holds-barred atmosphere in regards to the shows, writers, actors etc. but we do not allow member bashing in any form.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features.
|LATEST RATINGS: Y&R up in HH; Another bad week|
|Tweet Topic Started: Jul 24 2008, 12:20 PM (2,578 Views)|
|☼ Jinx ☼||Jul 25 2008, 02:34 PM Post #21|
Live. Love. Laugh. ♥
How bizarre is that! Without good ratings, a show doesn't need to worry about their budget ... because they'll be non-existant.
|Steve Frame||Jul 25 2008, 02:37 PM Post #22|
People always talk about bad dialogue. The average viewer could care less about the bad dialogue. Back in the 70's on Y&R, the dialogue was so bad even the actors made fun of it.
Janice Lynde once told an audience at a fan gathering about it. One of the fans asked why so many of the actors often had pained expressions on their faces. She said it was their way of not laughing at some of the lines they had to say. They looked that way from trying not to laugh.
The stories were great but the dialogue was awful. Kay Alden was one of the dialogue writers back then. She has grown a lot.
But the show was very popular. Most of the actors were good but they weren't great.
The stories are what drew them. And how they cared about the characters. Also the show offered something for all viewers. It was balanced. Even minor characters meant something to the audience because William J. Bell designed it that way.
For years soaps thrived with bad dialogue, less glamourous sets, less expensive wardrobes, etc. All that doesn't matter to the average viewer. The Secret Storm at the height of it's popularity spent at the most $50 on a performers full wardrobe. today I have read they spend into the upper hundreds at times on one outfit that you may never see again.
If the shows worked to balance the stories, perk up the stories, feature characters that the audience loves and has a connection with, and give all ages something to relate too - then the shows would do better. They are not going to soar like they once did but they might be able to hold onto the audiences they have.
Plus the fans have got to change too. They have got to learn that their fave can't be on 5 days a week and everything can't revolve around them.
The soaps need to stop spending so much money on stuff that doesn't matter too. Cut back on the expensive wardrobes and the like. Cut the writing staff - I know they will have to fight the WGA on that. They created these big writing staffs in the 80's with some of their bargaining tools. Before that there were smaller staffs and less people to interfere with the story from the way the headwriter designed it.
With budgets tight they don't need the big staffs they have. Why is it always the actors that the fans identify with that have to pay or are the ones that are cut to save money. Cut some of the writing and directing staff and put that money into using more sets to make the stories more believable.
The stories are where it is at. And the way those stories are executed and with the characters they use.
|Rakesh198||Jul 25 2008, 02:40 PM Post #23|
I'm 19 years old and I do not care about dialogues. I don't even notice if the dialogue is good or bad. lol
I like lots of good events.
|Charmqn||Jul 25 2008, 02:44 PM Post #24|
||I believe the only soaps truly safe is B&B and Y&R. B&B is the most watched soap worldwide, and still second in ratings...they don't have to worry.|
|ElvisDiMera||Jul 25 2008, 02:47 PM Post #25|
Today's audiences are different from the 70s. The bar has been raised. Maybe the bad dialogue on OLTL wouldn't stand out to me so much if they had the caliber of actors to deliver the lines in a way that didn't seem uncomfortable.
People demand more quality and soaps don't want to step up their games to deliver it which is why their audiences are declining. There are more options today than in the 70s. If you didn't like one soap, you turned the channel to another or turned off the TV. Not many options. Well, now you can turn the channel and find anything you want or pop in a DVD or turn off the TV and go surf the net.
The stories on OLTL are good but I don't think I can watch day to day because the bad acting and dialogue take too much away from it so that is not enjoyable enough to bother.
|downwhtone||Jul 25 2008, 02:51 PM Post #26|
||I for one like to have good dialogue on my soaps. Days picked up for me when Hogan first started writing (and even with Beth Milstein just before him) because the dialogue was so much improved. Poor dialogue for me takes away from the story that they are trying to tell.|
|Ellie||Jul 25 2008, 02:57 PM Post #27|
Steve, great post overall. I agree with you 100% about the dialogue. I don't think it affects the ratings whatsoever. And I agree about spending money on wardrobe and sets - the stories should come first. Some of my favorite storylines have taken place on the 'regular' sets.
I personally have never encountered a fan who wants his/her favorites on every day and disregards the rest of the show. But I do think the fans of specific characters and couples will be drawn in to the other stories when good writing and storytelling takes place, as you're saying. I know people here have posted about fans automatically fast forwarding certain stories, but I disagree with that. I think fans do give all storylines a chance, even storylines involving characters who are not their favorites. But, if these storylines are poorly written or poorly acted (or both), these fans will tune out.
Bottom line, the writing must improve. I'm not sure if cutting the size of the writing staff is the answer, but I do know one member of the writing staff who should be cut immediately.
|peaches179||Jul 25 2008, 03:17 PM Post #28|
|☼ Jinx ☼||Jul 25 2008, 04:23 PM Post #29|
Live. Love. Laugh. ♥
|The dialogue is very important to me. I'll notice and be really nit-picky for poor dialogue. However, I'm a lot more critical of storylines and events. If those are lackluster, I tend to notice it more and frown upon it much more.|
|ElvisDiMera||Jul 25 2008, 04:47 PM Post #30|
In relation to my comments about OLTL. I just think that is what is holding them back. They are trying to win fans back after losing a great # of viewers over the last year. Buzz is good but people tune in and gotta say that the bad acting/dialogue is a turn off.
Maybe they are seeing that and taking steps to do something. I heard they are replacing the actress who currently plays Sarah?? That is a start for sure. Well, if the new actress can act, that is.
Edited by ElvisDiMera, Jul 25 2008, 05:43 PM.
|e83talus||Jul 25 2008, 05:22 PM Post #31|
I don't know that I pay attention to dialogue but I do pay attention to scenes and how one show should be related or lead up to another show. Days has just being throwing random scenes out there for no apparent reason. An example would be that random scene a few weeks ago where Marlena is a bar having a drink and Victor walks up to her and say, "Hey Marlena do you want to talk?" and Marlena says,"No, not right now." and the show ends. What was the point of that scene. It did not match the beginning of the show and nothing relevant to that followed.
The same thing happens next week when Marlena has a run in with Trent at Java Cafe. She then has nothing else to do with him because she goes into her Stefano s/l the following week. This makes no sense to viewers and leaves you feeling like you missed something! It just seems like they have nothing to do with Marlena but want to throw her out there so they have her in scenes with Roman discussing their grown children on two different days or have her go to the bar and turn down a drink from Victor! WTF!
|cubsgirl||Jul 26 2008, 06:54 AM Post #32|
||Again it comes down to how ratings are calculated. Society is very different today than it was 20 years ago (even 10 years ago). How many of us are home all day to watch soaps? I am an elementary teacher with my summers off and I am still not home all day to watch soaps. I wouldn't be the soap watcher I am now if it wasn't for my DVR box. I can keep up with three soaps because my DVR records them for me or I can catch them on Soapnet. Even in the summer when I am home from work, I still watch the soaps after they have been taped on the DVR. But they only count DVR viewings of soaps if you watch them within a day of recording them as well as have a Nielsen Box. I don't have a Nielsen Box and I don't always watch them the next day. Sometimes I have a soap marathon on the weekend with having a busy schedule. Ratings for both daytime and primetime would be different if they took into account those people who simply tape a show on a DVR/TIVO device.|
|King||Jul 26 2008, 12:13 PM Post #33|
Phoenix and Jinxed, I was shocked when I heard how candid and non-chalant these people were talking about ratings and emmy wins.
They don't really care about either.
And if they don't, I don't see why I should, frankly.
|PhoenixRising05||Jul 26 2008, 12:30 PM Post #34|
GET EM STEPH!!
During the spring when not much was known about Days, I kept hearing that since Silverman took over, NBC changed their stance and now look at Days as a way to promote other shows and causes. Then, shortly after that, I heard CBS and ABC started thinking that way too, although not as strongly as NBC. I didn't hear many details. It just seems like the mentality has changed and that it's about just making money and helping the network. That explains why Days seems to be into all these NBC affiliated causes now and why they would be renewed despite the situation.
I'm interested in the ratings but I stopped using them as a measuring stick years ago. If they are good, fine. If they are bad, who cares. As long as my shows are still around, I could care less. That doesn't mean I don't want better from the shows I watch but I know in my heart that even if the shows did better, the ratings would not be much different anyway. As for the Emmy's, I was happy for Days this year but I stopped caring about those too long ago LOL.
|ElvisDiMera||Jul 26 2008, 01:11 PM Post #35|
TIVO shares info with Nielsen so if you watch a program the same day it aired, it counts in the ratings. This is whether you have a nielsen box or not.
If you watch the program within 7 days, it counts in the adjusted ratings which come out a lot later.
So I think Nielsen has attempted to adjust ratings to reflect society changes.
The biggest hurdle soaps have now that they didn't before is more choices for the viewers they do have access to. More tv channels, internet, dvds, video games - there is a lot competing for someone's time where as before it was this soap or that soap or nothing.
|King||Jul 26 2008, 01:15 PM Post #36|
I think it's just all they care about doing is making a show and going home. It's just another job to them, and we all hate our jobs.
Edited by King, Jul 26 2008, 01:15 PM.
|Steve Frame||Jul 26 2008, 02:03 PM Post #37|
Well I don't care about the ratings but for one thing - the ad dollars. As Nelson reported recently the ad dollars are down for all the shows but Y&R. Days has lost a lot of ad revenue. As long as it is down the networks are just going to use the shows and they are not going to improve. They spend the money they have the wrong way - they waste too much money on wardrobe, the wrong actors, too big of a writing and directing staff - and things they could and should spend it on they don't.
As long as the money is down the shows are not going to improve - they can't with the way they want to run things. And as long as that keeps going on ratings or quality are not going to change. I care about quality and not in how good the show looks but how the stories are executed and stuff like that.
for instance a struggling show like Days spent all that money on stunt casting someone like Shirley Jones and it did nothing for them in the long run. That money could have been spent a lot more wisely.
As King said very few there care anymore. And with that I don't care about any of the 8 shows still on.
I am now 4 weeks since I have watched one second of any of the 8 shows. And I don't think I will ever go back. For the first time in my life ever I don't miss them. All 8 could be cancelled tomorrow and I would not mourn them at all. For me they were already gone. In fact for at least 3 of them it would be a relief that they were finally out of their misery - because right now they are suffering a long painful death.
|☼ Jinx ☼||Jul 26 2008, 03:31 PM Post #38|
Live. Love. Laugh. ♥
The difference is we have a sense of job security, they don't. I don't know if that occurs to them or not, but ratings shouldn't be taken so lightly by them. That's like us taking performance reviews lightly at our jobs.
|Mason||Jul 26 2008, 04:23 PM Post #39|
|cjknick||Jul 29 2008, 05:31 PM Post #40|
Numbers are based on Live+Same Day ratings
Ratings for the week July 14-18, 2008
(Compared to Last Week/Compared to Last Year)
1. Y&R 4,893,000 (+48,000/-533,000)
2. B&B 3,380,000 (-166,000/-287,000)
3. GH 2,958,000 (+22,000/-486,000)
4. OLTL 2,657,000 (-106,000/-468,000)
5. ATWT 2,571,000 (-104,000/-196,000)
6. AMC 2,567,000 (-87,000/-350,000)
7. DAYS 2,312,000 (-226,000/-483,000)
8. GL 2,192,000 (+24,000/-347,000)
1. Y&R 3.6/12 (+.1/-.4)
2. B&B 2.5/8 (-.1/-.2)
3. GH 2.2/7 (same/-.5)
4. OLTL 2.0/7 (-.1/-.5)
4. AMC 2.0/6 (same/-.3)
6. ATWT 1.9/6 (-.1/-.2)
7. DAYS 1.8/6 (-.1/-.3) <-------- ties low rating
8. GL 1.6/5 (same/-.3)
Women 18-49 Viewers
1. Y&R 1,023,000 (-28,000/-205,000)
2. GH 945,000 (same/-353,000)
3. OLTL 843,000 (-42,000/-238,000)
4. AMC 733,000 (-32,000/-195,000)
5. B&B 677,000 (-90,000/-113,000)
6. DAYS 669,000 (-81,000/-320,000)
7. ATWT 647,000 (-9,000/-17,000)
8. GL 596,000 (+13,000/-79,000)
Women 18-49 Rating
1. Y&R 1.6/10 (same/-.3)
2. GH 1.4/9 (same/-.6)
3. OLTL 1.3/8 (same/-.3)
4. AMC 1.1/7 (-.1/-.3)
5. DAYS 1.0/6 (-.1/-.5) <------- new low rating
5. ATWT 1.0/6 (same/same)
5. B&B 1.0/6 (-.2/-.2)
8. GL 0.9/6 (same/-.1)
Girls 12-17 Viewers
1. OLTL 83,000 (+7,000/+19,000)
2. GH 64,000 (-3,000/+9,000)
3. AMC 61,000 (+8,000/+11,000)
4. DAYS 50,000 (-12,000/-32,000)
5. ATWT 46,000 (-9,000/-3,000)
6. Y&R 31,000 (-18,000/-107,000)
7. B&B 29,000 (-12,000/-41,000)
8. GL 22,000 (-16,000/-11,000)
Women 18-34 Rating
1. GH 1.0/7 (same/-.3)
2. OLTL 0.9/6 (+.1/-.2)
2. Y&R 0.9/6 (same/-.2)
4. AMC 0.7/5 (+.1/-.2)
4. DAYS 0.7/4 (-.3/-.6)
6. B&B 0.6/4 (-.1/-.1)
7. ATWT 0.5/3 (-.1/-.1)
8. GL 0.4/3 (-.1/-.3)
Men 18+ Viewers
1. Y&R 1,132,000 (+4,000/-195,000)
2. B&B 697,000 (-25,000/-139,000)
3. GH 504,000 (+45,000/-76,000)
4. ATWT 469,000 (-60,000/-85,000)
4. AMC 469,000 (-27,000/-139,000)
6. DAYS 455,000 (-67,000/-79,000)
7. OLTL 443,000 (-2,000/-142,000)
8. GL 409,000 (+2,000/-85,000)
Day-To-Day Ratings - HH/Total Viewers
For the SEASON September 24, 2007 through July 20, 2008
1. Y&R 4.0
2. B&B 2.8
3. GH 2.4
4. ATWT 2.2
5. OLTL 2.1
5. AMC 2.1
5. DAYS 2.1
8. GL 1.8
Women 18-49 Rating
1. Y&R 1.9
2. GH 1.6
3. DAYS 1.5
4. OLTL 1.4
5. B&B 1.3
5. AMC 1.3
7. ATWT 1.2
8. GL 1.1
Ratings courtesy of Toups/SON
|1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)|
|Go to Next Page|
|« Previous Topic · General Daytime News · Next Topic »|