Ratings in context: Soaps near bottom, but slower decline

Roger Newcomb recently linked an article reporting the recent March Sweeps ratings performance (both household rating, and one-year or season-to-date trends) of syndicated daytime and early prime shows. I decided to ask the question of "where do soaps fit in?". I had two questions. First, compared to other genres, how does the average ratings of soaps compare? Second, how does the one-year change rate compare? The answers follow in detail, but in summary, soaps really aren't doing very well in the overall daytime landscape, but their bleeding seems to have slowed. Other genres (judge shows, sitcoms) declined faster in the past year, but because they are cheaper and pull better numbers (sitcoms, anyway), I imagine they might still be more viable.


These answers were a little surprising to me, because I don't pay much attention to other genres. As a caveat, I am showing brute averages, and it would probably be more correct to do weighted averages that adjust for numbers of viewers, etc. In addition, these focus on household ratings numbers (which is all I could get, for the most part)--when we're constantly told it is that 18-49 or 18-34 demo we care more about.

Sitcoms: HH = 3.3
1st Hour morning news (e.g., Today): HH = 3.2
Game Shows: HH = 3.2
Entertainment news (e.g., ET): HH = 2.6
Soaps: HH = 2.2
Talk shows: HH = 2.1
Judge shows: HH = 1.6


That's pretty striking. In terms of delivering eyeballs, the relatively expensive soaps are in the bottom half of daily stripped programming! Yikes! If you were a bean counter, what genre would you pick to deliver eyeballs? Probably not a long-running drama that skews old in the demographics.


Now, the one-year decline trends tell a slightly different story...but this is again a bit of a problematic analysis (because it mixes new programs with long-running shows, and it doesn't control for things like affiliate clearance rates and the like). Still, I think several interesting stories emerge from these numbers:


Sitcoms: -13%
Game Shows: -7%
Entertainment news (e.g., ET): -3%
Soaps: 0%
Talk shows: +3%
Judge shows: -13%

First, in the short term, the soaps seem to have bottomed out, something Sara Bibel has also recently wondered. While we have still seen declines in many shows (B&B, GH, ATWT, GL), these have been offset by minimal decline and gain for others (Y&R, DOOL, AMC, OLTL).

Second, the highest decline rates seem to be for judge shows and sitcoms...but both of these are so relatively cheap. The judge shows, both at the bottom of the ratings pack and with the steepest descent, would seem to be at greatest risk...but they cost so little. The sitcom decline is more interesting to me, since the era of the "grand hit" (Friends, Cosby, Seinfeld) is over, and so I don't know if that genre can flourish without another big primetime hit. On the other hand, since there are no incremental production costs for repurposing and stripping primetime shows, I think all it means is that affiliates will be able to license syndicated shows at a lower rate.

Third, there is enormous variability within genres. That talk genre has some shows that show big to huge gains (Oprah, Ellen, The Doctors, Steve Wilkos, Bonnie Hunt), and these all suggest the talk genre still has momentum. On the other hand, no sitcom, judge show, or game show showed gain...and that suggests that some of those genres may be even more stale than soaps. Still, because those other genres are cheap, I'd still predict they have a better shot of persisting than soaps. The celebrity fascination is still viable, with several gossip/entertainment news shows showing growth.Maybe Soapnet is right to bet on more celebrity-oriented fare? It is somewhat surprising that 'reality' has still not found a foothold on daytime.

Wheel of Fortunea	7.2	-8%
Jeopardy	5.8	-6%
Oprah	5.4	+10%
Two and a Half Men	4.8	-8%
Judge Judy	4.4	-6%
Entertainment Tonight	4.3	-2%
Today Show (1st hour)b	4.2
Family Guy	4.0	-13%
The Young and the Restlessc	3.7	-1%
Seinfeld	3.6	-12%
The Viewd	3.5
Dr Phil	3.5	-17%
Good Morning America (1st hour)	3.4
Everybody Loves Raymond	3.1	-16%
The Price is Righte	3.0
Inside Edition	3.0	-6%
George Lopez	2.8	-13%
King of Queens	2.8	-7%
King of the Hill	2.7	-17%
Live with Regis & Kelly	2.6	-4%
Friends	2.5	-14%
Today (2nd hour)	2.5
The Bold and the Beautiful	2.5	-9%
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire	2.4	-14%
Ellen Degeneres	2.3	+10%
TMZ	2.3	+5%
Judge Joe Brown	2.2	-12%
Access Hollywood	2.2	-4%
Days of Our Lives	2.2	+2%
CBS Early Show (1st hour)	2.1
All My Children	2.0	+12%
One Life to Live	2.0	+11%
General Hospital	2.0	-7%
The Doctors	1.9	+46%
People's Court	1.9	-17%
As The World Turns	1.9	-7%
Rachel Ray	1.8	-5%
Maury	1.8	-5%
Extra	1.8	+6%
Insider	1.8	-14%
Deal or No Deal	1.7	+6%
Judge Mathis	1.6	-20%
Guiding Light	1.6	-4%
Judge Alex	1.5	-12%
Family Feud	1.5	-21%
Today (3rd hour)	1.4
Divorce Court	1.4	-18%
Tyra	1.1	0%
Cristina's Court	1.1	-8%
Jerry Springer	1.1	-8%
Steve Wilkos	1.1	+22%
Bonnie Hunt	1.0	+25%
Judge Karen	0.9	-18%
Morning Show with Mike and Juliet	0.9	-10%
Judge David Young	0.8	0%
Martha Stewart	0.7	-30%
Trivial Pursuit	0.6	0%
Family Court	0.5	-17%

^a Ratings and change data taken from http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/196222-Syndication_Ratings_Doctors_Ahead_of_the_Pack_in_Rookie_Field_During_Sweeps.php; where the show had been on for less than a year, ratings reflected change since premier

^b Morning show ratings taken from http://nbcumv.com/release_detail.nbc/news-20090409000000-big039today039.html One year change data were not readily available.

^c Soap opera season to date ratings taken from Soap Opera Network, http://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30056&view=findpost&p=704665. One year change rates computed from one-year change in total viewers as reported at SON

^d The View ratings taken from ABC daytime press release http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/09/sweeps-ratings-for-abc-daytime-programming/16404, total viewers = 4,100,000. HH rating estimated by linear regression (Rating = viewers), using data from Soap Opera Network (see footnote c above). The conversion formula was Rating = .096 + 7.081E-7*Viewers. One year change data were not readily available.

^e. The Price is Right ratings were averaged over Part 1 and
Part 2(first and second half hour), and reflect season-to-date as reported in January at http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Dayparts_update_51/Price_is_Right_falls_off_with_new_host.asp, total viewers = 4,800,000. HH rating estimated by linear regression (Rating = viewers), using data from Soap Opera Network (see footnote c above). The conversion formula was Rating = .096 + 7.081E-7*Viewers. One year change data were not readily available.

Coming Soon

Friends, thanks to those who have emailed and wondered if I abandoned blogging. No. Four things have kept me away: (a) Work, work and more work, (b) A spate of family illnesses and deaths, (c) I made an email switch, and thus missed many of your comments (they should have been forwarded, but were not), and (d) I felt like I was beginning to repeat myself. So, it felt like a good time to let things gestate. The advantage of doing a blog simply as a diary of my own thoughts, rather than as a job or on an externally imposed deadline is that the timing of things can be more natural and organic to the writer.

I have a few things to talk about though, in the next little while:

1. Soapnet ratings, and Soapnet critical response, and Soapnet's new deal for internet distribution of DOOL.

2. The gathering storm over Guiding Light.

3. The new role of the Internet, with a specific reference to the Jess Walton/Y&R situation.

4. My growing love for Nelson Branco at Canadian TV Guide, and why I think he is good for soaps. Also, an ever-growing appreciation for what Roger Newcomb is catalyzing -- both with his site, and with the new blogger coalition he is a part of.

5. SciFi becoming SyFy...yes, I think there is a soap tie-in here.

6. Damon Jacobs and "Shouldless". That is only tangentially related to soaps, and yet I really think he has an awful lot to tell us all.

In the meantime, I find that soap operas are flourishing on the internet (in terms of what is being written and talked about), and that is a very enjoyable way to extend the soap opera experience for those of us who don't get enough from our daily fix.

Now, if only Snark would weigh in again!

A little Nuke and the world explodes

Well, I realize this is a post that is happening a week after Luke and Noah had sex on ATWT. In my defense, I have been away at a family funeral. In addition, though, I really wanted to let the event gestate a bit. There has been so much written about it (hence the explosion of the title), and so much of it was contrary to what I thought I saw, I needed to let it all percolate. If you missed it, here is what I'm talking about:

In the end, my thoughts about the event are positive, and in line with Nelson Branco's quote from Sri Rao (writer of Night Shift 2): “Good for them. One small step for Nuke, one giant leap for daytime...”

Rao should know. He accomplished, with Night Shift 2, what daytime had failed to do: tender conversations between two men who really got to know each other, were confident in their sexuality (for the most part), and for whom a kiss was not a huge deal, but just beautifully tender and arousing to almost anyone who saw it. If you missed it, I mean this.

For me, Nuke sex was beautiful because (a) of the passion we got see leading up to it, (b) because NO LONGER can it be denied that Luke (scion of a core family) is a sexual being who -- yup -- has actually seen his love naked and actually related to him in a sexual way. (Make no mistake about it...there was contingent out there that thought Luke's celibacy was an 'appropriate' response to his 'wrong' attractions), and (c) because it is almost like the "last wall" has fallen (More on that below).

Most importantly, we're past it now. If Nuke ever has sex again, it won't be such a big deal (nor should it be). The big obstacle has been jumped. And for those who don't like Nuke, well, now the way has been paved for a couple you might like more. Never again will a gay male couple have to go through all this nonsense to merely kiss on daytime. That is a victory.

To be clear, All My Children accomplished the same thing for lesbian sexuality years ago, with Bianca. To see the remarkable intimacy of Reese and Bianca now, it is easy to forget how difficult it was for Bianca to be given on-screen kisses with Lena or Maggie years ago. But, those "outrages" perpetrated, Reese and Bianca are now free to be more openly loving.

The gay male sexuality was an extra hurdle. Make no mistake about it, when Brian Frons says "our lesbians are cuter", he is reflecting the fact that woman-on-woman sex is simply not as taboo anymore. Of course, this plays into the whole straight-male-porn-fantasy. Straight women never seemed to have a parallel enjoyment of gay porn in the mainstream, even though Carrie Bradshaw and the Sex and the City girls seemed to like it.

Indeed, Michael Moore suggested, tongue-in-cheek, in Mike's Election Guide 2008 that if the gay marriage amendments had been about lesbians, they would have readily passed. Showing a picture of two brides-in-veils with interlinked tongues, Moore wrote (pp. 35-36)

I am told that no one is opposed to watching two women kiss. Men love it, women love it, and the women doing it love it -- something for everybody! I don't think it is female-on-female love that has so many people (men) discombobulated. I think when they say they are against gay marriage, what they really mean is that they are against this:

(picture of two men kissing)

Now that is disgusting! Guys going all borkeback on each other--gimme a break! The state can't sanction that!

So, as a sociopolitical act of activism, I honestly believe Nuke is so, so important! Not because it is the first mainstream depiction of gay male sexuality, but maybe because it is the last important one! Let me expand on this by addressing some of the many critiques I have read about the story these last weeks.

This was not a "first". Indeed the whole story shows how locked in a conservative past soaps are.

The core premise, for me, is what Kay Alden meant when she said "Soaps are not an avante garde medium". (She said this at Sam Ford's MIT symposium, in relation to his Masters defense).

Another way I viewed the Nuke sex, specifically, was as "My heavens! There are boinking on homo-sect-choo-als on Aunt Mildred's STORIES!!! On ATWT!!! On one of the two oldest daytime shows! On a show that debuted in the Eisenhower era! On a show with a median viewer age in excess of 60 years! "

Much of the negative commentary about the "innovativeness" of this relates to the fact that Dynasty and Melrose Place and Brothers and Sisters and Hollyoaks and what have you all did it before.

True, that! And AMC has to continue to get credit for really having a core gay character first. (The history is longer, as you can see here).

So, why am I celebrating so much?

ATWT's gay male sex is not necessary the FIRST shoe to drop. Instead, I think Nuke may be interesting because it is the LAST shoe to drop. If we take the conservative, staid, stuck-in-the-past, pander-to-the-mainstream, do-not-inflame soap genre (I don't actually think it is all like that), and THEY have homo-sect-choo-als kissing and more...it is a true marker of culture change.

But in the end, my connection to this tale is more emotional, and it all goes back, again, to the fact that these are Aunt Mildred's STORIES! And now, with the wavy-whisps of an old-school flashback, I'm drawn back into the past... I am sorry this is a ramble, but it shows you that I'm not responding intellectually to this tale....

... what a difference might it have made to young men 30 years ago, if Nuke had been around then. Back in the day when soaps were more truly intergenerational? To show that gay men were decent, loving, respectworthy members of core families. That their mothers and grandmothers and neighbors still loved them, even though they were attracted to the 'wrong' sex. How many doors of healthy conversation and attitude change might it have opened?

[For those who do not believe that the generational experience of coming out is a whole different thing, compare Saul and Kevin on Brothers and Sisters. That is a totally authentic representation of how things have changed.]

Young gay men probably look at Nuke and say "come on! No big deal! We've been here and queer forever! The timidity and forcedness of the Nuke story is so in contrast with our lives".

Maybe.

But man oh man oh man has the world changed!

Someone from my genereation looks at Luke Snyder in AWE! The world has CHANGED! Imagine if, 37 years ago, Phil Brent had been a young gay man on AMC, and the triangle involving Chuck and Tara had been because Phil wanted Chuck! What a different world that would have been!

Even as the world moved along, soaps just DIDN'T. Not in major or significant ways (although that link above shows that some brave souls TRIED).

Now, finally, the "soap train" has arrived at the station. That is a big deal. (The "station", by the way, is the acceptance of gay male sexuality...as I posted earlier...for women it has been futher along).

When I look back on my nearly 44 years (damn, I feel old on this board), I simply cannot tell you how stunning Nuke is. It is truly akin (I know you'll accuse me of aggrandizing) how I imagine some African Americans felt when Obama became president. The world has changed!

All the feelings of things you could never achieve when you were younger...well that ceiling suddenly opens up...and you almost get a feeling of vertigo....imagine if the world had always been thus! How different might life have been?

Thirty years ago, there was NO ROLE MODEL, certainly not on soaps. Think about what Luke IS! He's the white-bread scion of a countrified-citified Oakdale...middle America...no crazy hair or dress or lifestyle. And average fella, he probably shops at malls instead of Soho thrift shops, not "loud and proud"...just a typical guy. (Yes, I know he is a Grimaldi...but I am ignoring that). To SEE THAT EVERY DAY!! EVERY DAY!!! Wow!

That changes the world! At least mine!

From the perspective of "jaded youth" that is well past all of this, I can see how Nuke is nothing special. From the perspective of someone who NEVER THOUGHT this day would come EVER....it is very special indeed.

For me, this is as fundamental as Uhura-Kirk. That interracial kiss was subversive, IMO, not because it was 'first', but because it infiltrated the white-male bastion of SciFi. If you were going to show that kind of 'miscegnation' to THAT audience....well...you had pushed the audience very far. ATWT is a very similar bastion....with a mainstream audience of older, homebound women....mothers of sons who live in environments where it still may not be acceptable to be gay. (You know...Prop 8 voters). Now, every day, even here, they cannot deny the existence of this reality. Maybe, if they don't tune out, they'll see that Luke and Noah are decent and regular. Not perverts or pedophiles or sluts. Just striped-shirt wearing doofuses who go to college. Maybe they will recognize their sons...and judge less harshly, having had their attitudes adjusted, if they sons turn out to be gay too. For all of you who are 'way past' a society that does not accept gay male sexuality, I'm here to remind you that the MAJORITY of people in many areas are NOT 'way past' the issue. ATWT and its ilk can be fundamental tools in the cultural evolution. (That is also why it is important to not yet p*ss those people off and show them sweaty thrusting in a bed. Get them ready in baby steps. That day will come...)

The story was lousy. Nuke was a terrible insta-couple.

This critique points to the origins of the story where, it seems, Luke's unreciprocated attraction to Noah was a little rushed. The basis for the mutual attraction was never firmly established, so -- other than the fact that these are two gay men -- we don't really know why they are together at this point.

I think this is a broader critique of ATWT's writing, and so it is not specific to Nuke. Also, at this point, I really don't think it is fair to call them an "insta-couple". After over two years? INSTACOUPLE?? That just is no longer true. The FOUNDATIONS of the union may be shaky...and I'm not saying this is terrific writing. But honestly, they've earned the right with enough shared history to be more than an insta-couple.

The whole thing was rushed, shoehorned into a single episode. It was almost like "let's get this over with".

The point is that a gay man, who is a member of a core family, whom the audience has been allowed -- more or less -- to see grow up has also been allowed to become a fully embodied sexual being on his show. And that is major. Within the context of this single episode, it was also a good soapy setup -- from the fight in Midtown to the feverish kissing and locking of doors, to the post-coital tenderness. Since ATWT is trying to get us to view the show in a more "episodic" way, this was a good episode vis-a-vis Nuke.

Sex on this particular day made little sense

This is Tom Casiello's point. This love scene didn't get the build-up of some "losing virginity" stories on other shows. Given how long this couple has been denying themselves, why on this random January Monday?

I don't know. I can't defend that choice in particular. But in the real world, people have sex. They don't schedule it for particular days or plan it or announce it with weeks of foreshadowing. They just "throw down". Nuke could no longer deny it.

I actually think it was a beautiful breakthrough for the precipitant of Noah's passion to be Luke's admonition that "You're selfish with your feelings". Finally, finally, Noah had an epiphany. And the forceful way that he kissed Luke was both hot and completely appropriate for the heated conversation that preceded it. So, for me, watching this episode (I confess!) in isolation...it made perfect sense. It seemed like a classic moment of anger-dissolving-into-passion. Indeed, the utter "prototypicality" of that kiss made me happy...Nuke was getting treated like just about every other soap couple. That's all we can ask for.

The scene should have been comparable to what we see with het couples, otherwise gay men are on the "back of the bus"

This "back of the bus" comment showed up on both Usenet, and in a comment to Tom Casiello's piece on this topic.

So, the activist in me says...sure...sweaty naked men kissing all over each other in bed MIGHT WELL have been the more appropriate soap template to use. Except Luke and Noah are young, and soaps typically use a more chaste approach for young sex.

Second, can we remind ourselves of the national realities here? Gay marriage amendments were turned down by the MAJORITY of voters in three states in November 2008. For us to ignore the context in which this story plays out is ... naive. I suspect there is a lot of overlap, for example, between the population that voted against gay marriage and the population that watches P&G soaps.

In addition, P&G/CBS received vociferous protest against Nuke kissing (thank you, Rev. Wildmon)! A scant year ago, there was even a visible kissing ban! P&G/Televest/Telenext/whatever was sufficiently scared that they ran a PHONE POLL to help them decide whether to continue the Nuke tale!

In light of the extreme caution that has been taken so far, why would we now want to engage in a sudden act of sensory 'flooding' and show hot sweaty sex? Baby steps is the key....

I may have a different opinion here. I believe that a softer, more "lamb-like" approach is the right one to take here, given that the majority of Americans is still not comfortable with gay male sexuality.

Let's face it. If I want to watch sex -- gay or straight -- I can find lots of porn on this here old internet.

So, soap sex is ... well ... usually hokey. At its WORST, it is arched backs and sweaty brows and treacly music.

I'm not saying, sometimes, that can't be remarkable to see, but for the most part, I'll pass.

Most of soap sex is off screen. Every married couple on soaps gets to have their sex off screen. And that's fine. I really don't need to to see ATWT's Tom and Margo grunting away fortnightly, or however often they do it .

This was Nuke's FIRST sex. It may get "hotter" as time passes. For me, what is important is that the threshold has been crossed.

Now, EVERY TIME we see those men on screen, America will know that they have seen each other naked, in a lustful way. That new reality suffuses every scene. That is DIFFERENT. That is ground breaking. That is what Monday opened. Two men who are explicitly sexual with each other, on the front burner. Now, when they touch, we will know it is a "knowing" touch...and like Tom and Margo or -- heck -- most days Brad and Katie -- we know they'll follow up on the "touch" later. No longer is this denied.

Once the conservatives catch their breath and stop their puking (men having SEX! how AWFUL!), the next sex scene (whenever it happens) could well be shirtless in bed together kissing. Who knows? Who cares? Again, if we want to see two men in flagrante delicto....well...there are other sites for that.

This is commercial TV! It plays to all kinds of sensibilities. How often are African American characters (the few who exist) given those arched-back scenes? How often are characters over 40 given those scenes? There are all kinds of racist, sexist, ageist and homophobic sensibilities that are being 'considered' as these soaps get put out...that's the reality of an advertiser-supported medium that needs to appeal to the "minivan majority" (ugh).

The fact remains....we KNOW, and we cannot deny, that two men now exist in Oakdale who related to one another fully as loving and sexual beings. That is ENORMOUS. I cannot believe people aren't just jaw-droppingly astounded at how ENORMOUS this is.

There should have been advance publicity

When she was still at SOD/SOW, Carolyn Hinsey expressed this point regarding Nuke's first kiss. Recently, I have seen this opinion expressed -- say -- via the Marlena Delacroix site.

I could not disagree more. I think this publicity is working EXACTLY as it should. Why?

First, again, let us not deny the hordes of protesters. Let us not forget the early 90s, when Thirtysomething lost all advertisers for an episode because two gay men were simply shown in bed together. Why give them an advance warning to get organized?

Second, let us not forget that the method-of-the-day is viral. I defy you, in the modern era, to show me many examples of where advance publicity has had ANY effect on ratings! Genie Francis' returns to General Hospital have been promoted...and there was scarcely a ratings blip. The sole exception to the "benefits of publicity" that I can recall was during the "Sudden Impact" arc on Young and Restless (8/6/2008). There, clever banner ads and some out-of-daypart-and-off-network TV ads did convince lapsed viewers to come back to see the newly re-energized Y&R.

But, for the most part, publicity is irrelevant now.

Instead, Roger Newcomb reports that over 300,000 have watched the Nuke sex on Youtube alone. Who knows how many more people saw it on Fancast or CBS.com, etc.

Those who proclaim the need for publicity are LOCKED IN AN OLD WORLD, where the only way to watch a soap was on TV. "Set your VCR" is an outdated phraseology, even if you substitute the word "DVR". If you miss a show, you can catch it (legally) online, and the network gets to count both the "hit" and the advertising revenue!

Indeed, the lack of advance publicity is BRILLIANT. It teaches viewers they HAVE TO WATCH, or they'll miss it. That avoids a one-day ratings spike (useless), and might encourage return viewership.

Viral, viral, viral, viral.

Whenever you want to complain about a lack of publicity, just remember these phrases: "TV is dead" and "Viral is in". ATWT is playing well to the modern world!

And for those who feel the lack of publicity was "defensive", as in "The network was chicken, and afraid to stir up protest"...well....when everyone is out to get you it is OKAY to be defensive. When you're going to stir up a hornet's nest, it is okay to wear protective gear! That's not cowardly...that's smart!

Sharing ice cream with grandma, post-coitally, was icky and diminished the moment

Yeah, Lucinda coming in the house was a bit icky...but remember that Nuke had sex in a house that they share with half of Oakdale. In that context, given the fracture that occurred between Luke and Lucinda over Brian's hidden sexuality, it was a moment of rapprochement that actually felt very good in light of the preceding tension between them.

MOREOVER, think how radical the scene was!!! Luke and Noah had just exchanged bodily fluids!! They had actively had sex. Even if Lucinda didn't know it, these now fully-embodied sexual young men were sitting next to her, in a moment of healing, eating ice cream. In other words, Luke and Noah's sexuality didn't distinguish them or ostracize them. They could simply co-exist, do normal things, have nice family scenes. Yes, a little post-coital languishing might have been nice...but the normalization and routineness of the Oakdale scene was nice, too.

It reinforced that gay male sexuality did not lead to the end of the World. Indeed, it kept on turning like always. What a terrific message!

On the Rise of the Soap Superblog

An interesting thing happened yesterday. Eric Braeden did his 9,000th interview for The Man Who Came Back. (Just kidding...but he has generated terrific press. Publicist Charles Sherman should be pleased that even the New York Times covered the story. *I stuck a mini-review at the bottom of this post).

Anyway, the interview was with Soaptownusa.com. Not Soap Opera Digest or Soap Opera Weekly. With a little soap blog. (Of course, he does plenty of interviews with the mags too).

New, fan-driven media are on the rise. It seems the old soap (print) press may be left behind in the dust?

Eric Braeden is a sharp businessman. His decision to do an interview with a blogger suggests, to me, that the worm has turned. Moreover, it isn't just Braeden. If you look at the major fan-driven internet radio shows, like Buzzworthy Radio or In The Zone or Stardish Radio or Daytime Confidential, each of them have had major and minor soap stars...in spades!...during this last year. It is not just actors. These radio shows have also featured some top writers, giving die-hard fans FINALLY some insight into the creative process. (My only quibble about the radio stuff is that it is very hard for hearing impaired people like me, especially since mostly telephones are used for the interviews. I wish wish wish there could be transcripts. Indeed, if that were to happen, there would be widespread forwarding...and the impact of these interviews would be greater. Look at what happened with Victoria Rowell!).

And, if we want to talk about the ascendancy of soap blogs (and, I believe, the decline of soap magazines), we need only look at the Guiding Light Blogger-experiment. Someone is paying attention!

That this all ties in to the concept of new media, and finding new ways of having active, engaged fans promote the genre to their peers...something Sam Ford and Tom Casiello have talked to us about...is even more engaging!

In addition, there is the emergence of two new classes of websites that, I think, attract many eyeballs. The first is the rise of the just-in-time news site! Week after week, Nelson Branco breaks major news and gossip, and he also consolidates other news in an unrivalled way. Daily, Daytime Confidential does the same thing, with a mix of opinion and spoilers that is unrivalled. And Roger Newcomb consolidates news, globally, several times a day.

The poor old print outlets, with their delayed release and poor mailing times by their fulfillment houses end up giving us old, cold news. When you take what they offer wrapped up in ads for psychics and collector plates and "fashion spreads" that have little interest for most readers...the days of the clunking magazine dinosaurs seem, sadly, nigh.

There was a time when the mags were the only game in town. What a blessing! But that era seems to have passed.

Also emerging is the "opinion columnist". Now, opinions are never in short supply on the internet (heck, look at me!), but there are a few columnists with genuine street cred! From soap writers Sara Bibel and Tom Casiello to soap-mag-pioneers like Marlena Delacroix, we get opinions based on experience. The insights are truly breathtaking sometimes!

Roger Newcomb and Tom Casiello, in particular, have further been doing something that the magazines fail to do: Embrace history! Roger has shared excerpts from many historical clippings (e.g., Time, Newsweek) on the soaps. Tom has also shared some truly amazing historical documents. SteveFrame's SoapsWEB is a treasure trove of archived historical material. No magazine...no "professional" site...can touch that!

More and more, if I want to look for good criticism, insider insight into the creative and marketing process, breaking soaps "news", or historical documents and perspectives, I look to the Superblogs. Can the soap magazines survive?

On the other hand, can the bloggers survive? For the most part, I suspect, we are seeing "labors of love". If they don't pay the rent too, are they sustainable? Maybe...because they are written for love, not money.

==
* Mini-review:

(By the way, I saw the film. You know...for what it was billed as...a Western revenge picture...it's a fine movie. It is really terrific, as a long-time Braeden fan, to see him bring his particular intensity to this genre. The film is genuinely discomfiting in places -- which it is meant to be. The only sad part is that the film was originally meant to be centered around a large African American labor action in the Reconstruction era. There are still threads of that story in the film, but most of it ended up in the "deleted scenes" part of the DVD. Clearly, they decided to tighten the narrative, and to focus on the more dramatically interesting violation-and-revenge arc. I'd recommend the film to anyone who enjoys Braeden, and wants to see him in a different milieu. Since he had total creative control over the project, the film also offers insights into the kinds of stories that Braeden likes to tell.)

Go for classic, not for fad

GL, you cannot know how much I am pulling for you to succeed. I truly feel you are the canary in the coal mine. You've perfected, in my opinion, the production model. Now, bring the writing along!

I wasn't planning to write this, but I stumbled on this item. I don't usually mention Perez Hilton here, but in this case...

In a pst today, the gossip blogger writes:

Viewership for The Hills is down.

Way down!

Original episodes have tumbled 26% in the coveted 12-34 y.o. viewer demographic in the fourth quarter, compared with the same period last year.

Okay, now...sigh...

This is actually a lesson soaps (should have) learned after Gloria Monty elevated General Hospital to all-time highs. As Roger Newcomb's blog reminds us today, the viewers attracted for a pop culture phenom were not the "foundational" audience that stays with a show for decades. Two years after the Ice Princess, GH was in freefall.

The lesson then, as now, is that you have to program for mom and grandma, but do it in such a compelling way that they suck their daughters (and sometimes sons) into watching too. That is not the MTV model. But it is how soaps are built.

So how is this relevant to GL? Remember this article about GL?

The villain in this piece is the reality show. When veteran soap-opera producer Mary-Ellis Bunim created The Real World for MTV in 1992, soap opera’s exclusive grip on emotionally manipulative programming began to loosen.

Notice the Laguna Beach mention in the next quote. That is, ahem, the progenitor of that falling morass mentioned by Perez, The Hills!

Where other daytime producers are amping up the supernatural plots and onscreen text messaging to attract viewers, Wheeler has given her show an extreme makeover, reality-show style. For the first time, fans can see the actual streets of Springfield, a midwestern town in an undisclosed state—which look suspiciously like the streets in Peapack, New Jersey, where one-fifth of the scenes are being shot, all with handheld cameras. “We finally get to come into their world,” says Wheeler, who was inspired by shows like Laguna Beach and Friday Night Lights.

The elusive quest for 12 year olds....

With its face-lift, Guiding Light is banking on pulling in a whole new generation of viewers. “I do think if you were flipping through the channels you wouldn’t say, ‘Oh, this is a soap opera, I’m not going to stop,’ ” says Wheeler. “You wouldn’t know what it was.”

...leaves 39 year olds behind...

When the “new” show debuted on February 29, there was the expected backlash. Fans immediately hit CBS with online complaints about the artsy flourishes (producers have toned them down). “These shows are created to be romantic fantasy and fantastical adventure,” says TV Guide’s soap columnist, Michael Logan. “We don’t want reality when we’re watching a soap. We want a ‘Calgon, take me away’ moment.”

I wasn't planning it, but I think this blog post serves as a kind of companion for the other one I wrote today.

I deeply believe that Ellen Wheeler/GL's production model can and should work. It produces a cheaper show to make, and it looks pretty darn good on my (computer) screen. I applaud the show for conducting the experiment! Michael Bruno said (in last week's SOD) that GL is actually making money! So, by that metric, GL is a success. And these shows have to make money to survive! (If you don't like conceding to the commercial demands of television, go to some art house film or an experimental theater).

GL has exemplars that show it can be a storytelling success too, even with this lower-cost production model. We know there are pop culture hits (critically and/or box office) that use a similar style, it can work! It is now time to invest, though, in some writers of immense vision. Don't let the inspiration be MTV's Real World. Even if you draw in 12 year old viewers...they won't stick around. It doesn't work that way anymore. Let your models be Cloverfield or the Office or both. Those things entertain.

The secret is to stay away from the pedestrian (e.g., a routine conversation in an autumnal field), and give us the exciting. Give us big stakes that are in our face. Let the narrative make use of the intimacy and immediacy of the form, and the shaky anxiety of its hand-held cams, and write to that!

The Template for Saving Daytime, Part 1

This post is inspired by one of the best soap interviews I have ever read, conducted by Nelson Branco of the Canadian TV Guide (links below). I thank that reporter for one of the most insightful interviews in this area ever published.

This post is one of two. This first post talks about saving daytime CREATIVELY, in terms of storytelling and fan appeal. The second post talks about saving daytime FINANCIALLY, in terms of generating revenue in the new media landscape.

For both parts, I make the assumption that "my" show, The Young and the Restless, may be the template. In this post, I'll briefly try to suggest that Y&R is, at least for now, creatively 'saved' (acknowledging that it takes no more than ONE boneheaded corporate decision to undo it), and review how that was done. In the next post, I'll make the argument that no show is financially safe...but that Y&R has carefully done just about everything it can to maximize the probability of longevity. This post addresses the proposition that, as a the strong central leader, Maria Arena Bell creatively rescued Y&R. "How she did it", below, refers to the strategies engaged in by Bell. Interesting, many of these strategies have an older name: "Marland's rules".

None of this causes me to retreat from the idea that, ON THE CURRENT TRACK, relying ONLY on network (CBS) ratings, Y&R can't survive past the mid-2010 decade. I believe, however, that if our model for appraising and remunerating success is modernized, Y&R may well flourish beyond this time.

A. Subjective evidence for creative salvation

What makes me say Y&R is creatively saved? Well, first there is my own opinion. A lifelong fan of Y&R, I have gone through dry spells. One of them was at the end of Bill Bell's reign. (Nikki marrying her gynecologist? Kay Alden quickly undid that mess). Another was at the end of Jack Smith's reign. (I loved his Cassie-death story...with a passion...but after years of "all Brittany Hodges all the time", I could hardly stand it).

Twice, in recent years, my passion for the show has been restored. The first was early in Lynn Latham's regime. (Yup!). This is when Kay Alden and Jack Smith and Ed Scott and Kathryn Foster and Jim Houghton and Trent Jones, etc., were all still with her. There was that brief window after Nikki's mugging, where Victor was smelling lavender, and John was having dizzy spells, and Brad was suddenly looking at faded newspaper clips about a brutal murder in Parma, OH...and I hadn't been as excited about the multiple mysteries in AGES. I loved the story structure. We were focusing on John's neurological problems and Nikki's spinal health (would she...like her last spinal injury on horseback...descend again into painkillers?)...when the REAL story was Victor's burgeoning seizure disorder.

Like every fan on the planet, my enthusiasm about Lynn Latham's Y&R didn't last. As it became a disorganized mess, with little throughline, little emotional resonance, too many newbies, and characters changed to suit plot...

But now...since the middle of 2008, Y&R has been on a never-ending high roll. Launched with Sabrina's Sudden Impact death, followed up with the remarkable Return-of-the-House-of-Abbott and the incredible "Kay's Death" umbrella, the show is hitting all the right notes. When Lauren Fenmore apologized to Traci Abbott for being a "mean girl" two decades ago (this is a scene between two recurring characters!!), I understood how fully the show was being written for us loyalists...those who have been there from the beginning.

Here's the thing (and I am not alone...I'm reading this everywhere). Y&R is in a place right now where many of us CANNOT WAIT till the next episode. Moreover, most episodes deliver "oooh" and "aaah" moments. Note, these are not moments borne of plot (explosions, gunfights, etc.). These are moments of characters connecting, or characters battling. Some of the best moments on Y&R this last month or so were the Traci-Lauren scene, Kay's will reading, Jack FINALLY unleashing his venom at Gloria (for the tainted cream scandal), or the remarkable Vail Bloom and Chris Engen playing EVERY emotional nuance in their tortured romance (compatible, two loners from similar backgrounds who found each other, sexually incendiary, sweet and sexy together, but she's a law and order girl and he's a really bad boy). Old and new, the show is truly doing well in almost every domain.

B. General critical praise

I'm a fanboy, prone to hyperbole, so it is easy to dismiss me.

But look at the parade of "laudatory" awards Y&R received this year:

Roger Newcomb (qualified praise)
Canadian TV Guide
US TV Guide

with copious praise from Soap Opera Digest for its major stories.

and (if you read message boards) fans everywhere. Maybe this is group think...mass hysteria...but I think most people understand that Y&R is creatively terrific right now.

C. How she did it

Interestingly, it seems that the formula used was deviously simple. So simple, it has been known for several decades as "Marland's rules" or "How Not to Wreck a Show". His article was published in the April 27, 1993 issue of Soap Opera Digest, shortly after his passing.

Marland's Rule	What Maria did	Source
Watch the show.	"Yes. Listen, I admit — I didn’t watch every episode, but I followed Y&R since I worked here in the 1980s. Despite being a Bell, I’ve always loved soaps, and especially Y&R. So yeah, I followed Y&R like a fan. If you’re working in this business, you must be a fan. Even as [the boss], when I watch the show, I forget I work on it, because I switch back into fan mode. I cried like crazy at Katherine’s funeral!"	TVGuide.ca
Learn the history of the show. You would be surprised at the ideas that you can get from the back story of your characters.	"It’s been incredible to utilize Bill’s bible. The characters and the history he left have only grown richer and richer over the years. My job is to move Genoa City into the 21st century."	TVGuide.ca
Read the fan mail. The very characters that are not thrilling to you may be the audience's favorites.	Bell, in an interview with Paul Rauch in Soaps in Depth (December 2008) said that they listened to "fans" and "focus groups", and that this indicated that classic characters and actors were what they wanted to see.	Soaps In Depth
Be objective. When I came in to ATWT, the first thing I said was, what is pleasing the audience? You have to put your own personal likes and dislikes aside and develop the characters that the audience wants to see.	"When I returned to Y&R, a lot of things had changed. A lot of the characters and storylines had [swung] in some wonky, strange directions. I didn’t want to be one of those people who came in and changed direction by forgetting what viewers had experienced onscreen during past regimes. Instead, I felt it was really important to build on what was already here; wrap up stories that were left dangling for too long; and give viewers the satisfaction of a resolution and pay off. After we accomplished that, we moved in a new, fresh direction."	TVGuide.ca
Talk to everyone; writers and actors especially. There may be something in a character's history that will work beautifully for you, and who would know better than the actor who has been playing the role?	"Omigod — working with Hogan has been a great deal of fun, as you can imagine. Although I’m the primary head writer and storyteller on the show, I have been lucky to have him on our team because he brings a fun sensibility to the stories he writes. He knows how to lay out a storyline. Hogan’s one of the funniest people on the planet. And Scott Hamner offers this incredible sense of integrity in his writing. Our show is really cohesive."	TVGuide.ca
Don't change a core character. You can certainly give them edges they didn't have before, or give them a logical reason to change their behavior. But when the audience says, "He would never do that," then you have failed.	See the "wonky" quote above.	TVGuide.ca
Build new characters slowly. Everyone knows that it takes six months to a year for an audience to care about a new character. Tie them in to existing characters. Don't shove them down the viewers' throats.	Here, the evidence is in production. Think of the introductions of Billy Abbott or Adam Wilson or Chloe/Kate Valentine Chancellor. Each are important scions of core families. None are truly front burner...they're on more like 2-3 days a week. Each one is tied to multiple veterans. Each one has shades of good and bad (mostly bad, though...but that sets up the redemption arc).
If you feel staff changes are in order, look within the organization first. P&G [Procter & Gamble] does a lot of promoting from within. Almost all of our producers worked their way up from staff positions, and that means they know the show.	Some of the subsequent rehires, both as directors (e.g., Mike Denney) and writers (e.g., Janice Ferri Esser) have been from the "vintage" era. Of course, promoting from within was the classic ultimate "Bell" tradition.	Soap Opera Network Writers and Directors Thread,
Don't fire anyone for six months. I feel very deeply that you should look at the show's canvas before you do anything.	In Toup's Soap Opera Network Writers and Directors Thread, he notes that many of Lynn Latham's hires were not fired until given a chance to show their business. Correspondingly, "Darin Goldberg & Shelley Meals last listed as Writers on June 25", "Valerie Ahern & Christian McLaughlin last listed as Writers on July 7", "Cherie Bennett & Jeff Gottesfeld last listed as Writers on August 19", and "Josh Griffith last listed as Co-Executive Producer on October 2". Vincent Irizarry's David Chow was universally reviled (even the actor says the character was inconsistently written by the previous regime, in a December Soap Opera Digest), but Arena Bell kept him on canvas from December 27/2007 through August 6/2008. She brought the character to a satisfying resolution (killed in a car wreck, his ashes thrown in a wheelbarrow of horse manure), rather than just dumping him.	Soap Opera Network Writers and Directors Thread,
Good soap opera is good storytelling. It's very simple.	My focus here? It’s as a writer and a storyteller. It’s important as a writer to ensure your story is taken to the screen to its absolute highest height. Since Paul’s been here, the material has been fulfilled. Really, my job is to write the show. In daytime, especially these days, having creative control is important. You need to be able and free to tell the stories you want to tell — in the way you want to tell them. If you have a vision and the passion, people will come along with you for the ride.	TVGuide.ca

Now, Nelson Branco's interview (heavily quoted above--you must read the whole thing, because it contains so much more!) was also revelatory because it also showed a few more key ways in which Arena Bell has strengthened her show.


I. Production should follow storytelling, not follow it.
Form must follow function, and not the reverse. As much as I have applauded Ellen Wheeler's GL experiment, they have it backward. On that show, storytelling is following the new production model...and is therefore weakened. Storytelling should come first.

The other lesson is that a sumptuous production model may be more appealing than a lean "verite" one.

"Paul couldn’t be a better or a more experienced producer. He ensures our show is produced to perfection. When I watch Y&R, I’m always blown away at how our material is perfectly [realized] onscreen." (Source: TVGuide.ca)

II. A singular creative vision, free from corporate interference, is essential.
Bill Bell understood that. Sadly, CBS, ABC, NBC, Sony, Corday, Disney...they all might not. And daytime is weakened by the misunderstanding. I'll write more about the "auteur" model of daytime in a future post.

"In daytime, especially these days, having creative control is important. You need to be able and free to tell the stories you want to tell — in the way you want to tell them." and "They all defer to my vision, and yet, because we share the same goal, we have all professionally jelled rather beautifully. As you know, you can’t run a soap opera if there are too many cooks in the kitchen — especially when it comes to story. Yes, soap opera is a collaborative medium, but there must always be one vision." (Source: TVGuide.ca)

III. Write soaps only if you love the genre.

"The people who are the most successful in this business are people who love it inside and out. I think you make a colossal mistake if you think soap operas is anything less than any other medium or storytelling forum. We never dumb down our show in any way." (Source: TVGuide.ca)

I contrast this with Leah Laiman (ATWT), who recently indicated she had a hard time coming up with compelling stories.

With one hour a day, five days a week, fifty-two weeks a year to fill, I am in constant search for inspiration. I can adapt a plot from classic Greek tragedy (you can´t go wrong with Oedipus) or classic vintage movies (It Happened One Night works for almost any new couple). Newspapers and magazines offer an embarrassment of riches. The old chestnut switched-at-birth-baby story you might encounter on any number of shows I´ve written (General Hospital, Days of Our Lives, One Life to Live, Another World, Guiding Light) was the subject of numerous articles and, needless to say, a hefty lawsuit, several years ago. I grant you there aren´t too many people who return from the dead just as a former spouse is on the verge of marrying a new partner. Still, thwarted romance, in all its many guises, is a recurrent theme in reality as well as fiction.

In my next post, I'll talk about financial rescue of daytime.

Wow! GL and the blogosphere!

I'll get back to J. Bernard Jones one more time in my next post.

But, in the meantime, have you been following the blogosphere?

Michael Fairman and Sara Bibel and Patrick Erwin and Roger Newcomb and Soaps.com's Matt Purvis have all been invited to Peapack, NJ to have a whole set of in depth encounters with the GL creative team from top to bottom.

Regardless, it was only recently that Tom Casiello reminded us of the SuperFan (my word), and the use of social networking and devoted fans to "spread the word" about media properties. Sam Ford (sample blog here) has often talked about this whole area of "convergence culture", and is basically single-handedly introducing the concept to "thinking fans" who care about soaps.

There can be no clearer sign that the GL team remains committed to moving the show into the new world. I give much credit to that team. Even though I don't know how long the GL experiment can last in this economy, and I'm not sure they're doing everything right, I want to kiss them all for trying. I can't wait to hear the many insights that will flow from this.

Sara Bibel mentions that it is daring and innovative (I think that was her phrase) for GL to invite all these bloggers. True. Bloggers are a fiercely independent lot, and surely not part of the publicist-controlled media.

More importantly, I think it speaks volumes about the declining (last gasp?) influence of the soap opera magazines. As Roger Newcomb has railed for a while now, GL can't even get a COVER of SOD. So, how clever for GL to bypass the old media, and go straight to the new! This can not only help GL...it further helps establish the legitimacy of this newer form of disseminating information and publicity.

Bravo to the whole lot of you!

Failing to re-invest: Another reason for the decline of soaps

How did we get here? I have shared my obsession with ratings charts, and I hope I have been slightly convincing to at least some folks that the linear ratings decline we have experienced in the US since at least the late 1980s is trans-genre, and not really related to any particular show or creative team.

Some good skeptics have written me to say "But some of this decline has been due to VCRs and then DVRs, which never got counted". That is totally true! Indeed, I have argued elsewhere that when you add Y&R's CBS broadcast plus 7-day DVR numbers plus Soapnet plus legal online streaming (fancast, msn, youtube, globaltv.com) it is actually plausible that Y&R might have 8-10 million US viewers per episode.

Still, that monolithic decline can't be ignored. One irate correspondent wrote me privately to ask (I'm paraphrasing) what I was smoking, and if I was twelve years old and completely unwise. OBVIOUSLY, it is the decline in QUALITY (which may be attributed in part to the youth-grab...the desire to tell quick stories with young newbies, and to chase a more juvenile taste) that caused soap decline. Honestly, I'm not so sure. I'll accept the quality decline, but I remind myself that correlation is not causation. We don't know what is chicken, and what is egg. I'm inclined to think that some of the quality decline is due to REACTIONS to declining viewership and loss of dollars. Newbies are cheaper, for example.

In the end, it is probably non-sensical to have the quality-ratings debate. Clearly, ratings loss has many factors (viewing choices, women out of the home, overall decline of TV, loss of intergenerational viewing, social perception of soaps as 'dated' and 'uncool', etc.). Quality may be a part of that, but the direction of causation is undoubtedly reciprocal. Quality never really reflects ratings...otherwise, shows like St. Elsewhere and Boomtown would have been top-rated (or Masterpiece Theater), and shows like According to Jim would only have lasted a single season.

Anyway, the point of this post is something different. On some soap boards, I (and others) have expressed the idea that a key problem with modern soaps is that they are often 30-70 years old! As much as I love my 35 year old Y&R (and would mourn if it disappeared), I'm also 43...and not the desirable demographic. It would be fine if my Y&R could continue, but there need to be new soaps for the new generation.

As a cultural referent, I mention music, movies and primetime. In none of these genres do we expect the young (desirable demographic) consumers to be enjoying the stuff of their parents and grandparents. Each new generation needs its own music (rock and roll, folk, progressive rock, disco, rap/hip-hop, punk...each was new music for a new generation). The 80s saw St. Elsewhere, the 90s ER, and the 2000s House/Grey's Anatomy. This is natural.

Note, I'm not just parroting Madison Avenue's preference for young eyeballs. For any organization/entity to be viable, it needs REPLACEMENT. As people die, others must be born. This requires that pop culture constantly evolve to be relevant.

Now, I know that some people claim that our chestnut soaps can evolve and be relevant. But honestly, I don't think so. Marceline at SON has called this the over-reliance on nostalgia. AMC shifts to film look, and the viewers complain. GL shifts to the new production model (I realize that show has other problems) and people call it cheap. Y&R shifts to a more primetime feel (thanks, LML!) and viewers call it sacrilege. Part of the reason there is an ENDURING audience for soaps is the familiarity of our soap worlds. Familiar characters, actors, sets, stories...

What this means, I think, is that we need a regular sequence of retiring old soaps, and building new ones. Indeed, during the salad days of soaps, the networks agreed! Of course, making new soaps is a financially risk endeavor. There is a lot of startup cost. And history shows that MOST soaps don't survive very long. The long-term survivors are quite few and far apart. But without that constant new investment, the chance for a new show to "stick" and become relevant is nil.

The consequence of that is what we are seeing now: More deaths than births. Eventually, the genre dies off.

This is not a new argument. The incomparable Irna Phillips said this in a Time Magazine article in 1940, archived by the equally incomparable SteveFrame here:

Today's Children ran for six and a half years. It was still number one with Crossley when Irna stopped writing it. She based her move on the belief that her characters had run through all possible logical situations.

"When you have saturated logic," she says, "you should take your show off the air."

The chart below illustrates the problem.



Look at the 60s and 70s. There was a huge number of premieres (blue), and a huge number of cancellations (purple).

"You can't succeed if you don't try".

I realize that even a decade ago the networks were still trying. Not much--purple begins to outweigh blue by the 80s. Now, we're in a solid purple stage. Maybe I should have colored that red...the bleeding out of the genre.

How do I end this with hope? It's hard. I do note that new forms of soaps (e.g., Roger Newcomb's Scripts and Scruples, all the remarkable fanfic that SteveFrame's SoapsWeb is now honoring--at places like Soapoperanetwork and DaytimeRoyalty) is emerging. But that form is labor-of-love, not labor-of-profit.

I hope, someday soon, the financials might change...and broadcasters might again try. We need more blue on this chart!

Will ATWT Brian's potential be realized?

I was excited to learn about the Brian story on ATWT. First, as Roger Newcomb has said, it is the kind of dysfunctional intergenerational mess that is at the core of soaps and ATWT. To have a gay element to that helps to end the marginalization of the show's "gay storyline".

But there are warning signs that this story is not going to be subtle, nuanced, or authentic. It seems Brian is going to be the sleazy guest villain of this quarter, bilking Lucinda while trying to shag Luke...which is already raising groans of disgust from the soap quarters I visit.

From cbs. com, here is the most recent beat of the story:

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Lily and Holden visit Lucinda at the hospital, where Lucinda and Brian have just confirmed that they’ll be getting married. Lily is alarmed at the news. Brian goes to call the judge and run some wedding errands as Lily has a moment alone with her mother. Lily explains her concern and Lucinda defends her actions. Lily understands that Lucinda doesn’t want to die alone. Lily wants ­Lucinda to be happy. Brian has Lucinda sign a pre-nuptial agreement to show that there are no strings. He gives her his Princeton class ring and they exchange vows. Lily and Holden are moved. Meanwhile, Noah helps Luke sober up. He gives him coffee at Java, then after Luke starts to insult him, Noah takes him home. Luke doesn’t want Noah to leave, but when Noah does, Luke goes after him. Brian, running home after his wedding to Lucinda to get her some clothes for tomorrow, finds Luke on the road, picks him up and brings him home. Luke cleans himself up but is a total wreck emotionally. Brian consoles him, hugs him, and finally kisses Luke. Luke’s out of it at first, then pulls away and staggers upstairs. Brian is overwhelmed.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Lily and Holden leave a message for Luke, then go see Lucinda for a wedding breakfast at the hospital. Luke wakes up hung over, flashes to Brian kissing him, and wonders if it really happened. Luke arrives at the hospital to see Brian toasting Lucinda with his parents there. In the corridor, Luke wants to know what the hell Brian’s doing. Brian plays it off, says he comes from an expressive family, and doesn’t want Luke to ruin this for his grandmother. Luke tries to tell Lily that this marriage is a mistake but she too wants Luke to let Lucinda be happy. Later, Brian and Lucinda exchange wedding bands as an upset Luke watches through the window.

Brian's denial and inauthenticity makes some fear that this is going to go in an almost-incest direction, where Brian tries to pluck the cherry from Luke's tender young tree, but then blackmails him (or whatever) into silence. If that is the tale...that's kind of yech.

It seems to me recent real life offers all kinds of really deep, moving possibilities for this story. I hope they have the courage to go in that direction.

1. Ted Haggard (villain storyline, wrapped up in fundamentalism and conservatism...plausible for a "foundation manager" or whatever) Haggard is particularly villainous because (a) he won't own up to his homosexuality, even when caught AND [cue standard fundamentalist narrative] (b) he claims he was "warped" by early sexual abuse that took 40 years to "ripen"

Excerpt:

Earlier this month, a guest took the pulpit at Open Bible Fellowship in Morrison, Ill., a 350-member church surrounded by cornfields. The speaker was an insurance salesman from Colorado named Ted Haggard.

The former superstar pastor, disgraced two years ago in a sex-and- drugs scandal, had returned — this time as a Christian businessman preaching a message that was equal parts contrition and defiance. *Haggard linked his fall to being molested in second grade and apologized again.*

Haggard, 52, resigned as president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals and was fired from New Life Church amid allegations that he *paid a male prostitute for sex and used methamphetamine*.

Haggard said in 2006 he *bought the drugs but never used them*, confessed to *"sexual immorality"* and described struggling with a *"dark and repulsive"* side. He had risen from preaching in his basement to taking part in White House conference calls — and fallen so far that he became a late-night punch line.

He apologized for making his family suffer, acknowledged suicidal thoughts and chastised church leaders for missing an opportunity to use his scandal to "communicate the gospel worldwide." Haggard said he emerged with a *stronger Christian faith and marriage* than he'd ever had.

2. James McGreevey (a little more complex; probably not too much different from Haggard, although he ultimately acknowledged that he had been denying his homosexuality). But no matter what you think of him, READ how he writes about this. He talks about incorporating inauthenticity into his personality, and about that actually helping him in politics. He also talks about how he consistently made choices to deny his identity. Finally, he talks about the compartmentalization that make it all work for him. I'm here to say that is 100% gospel...that is NOT a set of bullsh*t excuses. That is the elaborate fiction such men create...and that is totally what Brian could be. With good writing....

Excerpt:

I’ve never been much for self-revelation. In two decades of public life, I always approached the limelight with extreme caution. Not that I kept my personal life off-limits; rather, the personal life I put on display was a blend of fact and fiction. I invented overlapping narratives about who I was, and contrived backstories that played better not just in the ballot box but in my own mind. And then, to the best of my ability, I tried to be the man in those stories.

In this way I’m not at all unique.* Inauthenticity is endemic in American politics today. *

*Ironically, the dividing experience of my sexuality helped me thrive in that environment*. As I climbed the electoral ladder—from state assemblyman to mayor of Woodbridge and finally to governor of New Jersey—*political compromises came easy to me because I’d learned how to keep a part of myself innocent of them. I kept a steel wall around my moral and sexual instincts*—protecting them, I thought, from the threats of the real world. This gave me a tremendous advantage in politics, if not in my soul. The true me, my spiritual core, slipped further and further from reach.

There were moments when the ripping misery of this life became too great, moments when I thought about “becoming gay” and all that that entails.

My political potential was enormous. *I think I decided that my ambition would give me more pleasure than integration, than true love*. Coming to this realization made me feel not suicidal, exactly, but morose. It’s hard to describe how it feels to surrender your soul to your ambition.

Among other things, I was anxious about marrying Dina. I had met her at a campaign event—she was an uncommonly beautiful 31-year-old blonde in a red double-breasted suit. When the event was over I walked her out to her car and kissed her. *I’m still not sure what made me do it. Loneliness, I suppose. Maybe she just seemed like the perfect politician’s wife; it might have been that self-serving. Our romantic life was troubled from the start, but I loved her deeply as a friend and companion. And I did believe I was offering her some things she truly coveted: the stability of marriage, the prospect of a loving family, a chance to share a life of public service, political excitement in spades*.

3. Aaron. A married gay man, who has been honest with his wife. The thing is...he loves his wife, but he's gay. He wants to stay with his family, parent his child, and remain true to his (deep) faith. He struggles everyday with how to resolve the contradictions.

He calls his life "Paysage choisi", which means "chosen landscape".

Excerpt #1:

The name of this blog ("paysage choisi") comes from a poem by the 19th century French poet Paul Verlaine, which is in a collection called Fêtes galantes inspired by Watteau’s rococo paintings. Verlaine’s words have been set to music more than once, but it is Fauré’s setting that has been going through my head a lot lately. *I find the themes in the poem very close to home: wearing masks, going through the motions, hiding sadness, life’s sad beauty*.

Excerpt #2:

*Coming out of the closet and staying in the house*

I have been inching out of the closet for a long time now. I came out to my wife in a moment of crisis eight years ago, and her loving support and empathy were amazing. I think we both thought at the time that simply removing that secret from between us would strengthen our relationship and everything would be fine.

Although I had already begun the process of shedding the sense of shame I had been carrying so long, the experience of talking freely with the therapist, a gay man himself, was incredibly liberating. At the first session, he asked me where I wanted to go with the therapy — what my goal was — and I realized that I didn’t know.*I explained that I felt fully committed to my marriage and that this was about my inner journey of accepting myself*.

Strangely, though, in parallel with the sense of exhilaration I have felt as I have begun to be freed from the burdens of guilt, shame and self-doubt, I have also felt an increasing sense of isolation and loneliness. *For various reasons, I have been reluctant to find opportunities to meet other gay men. Yet my need to do so is like a lead weight on my chest. This feels like another barrier — another closet door*.

When most gay men come out of the closet, they are making a statement not only about who they are, but also about who they love and how they live. For me, though, it’s really just about what goes on in my head. And that seems somehow less significant and more private — not the sort of thing you share with most people. So, is it possible to come out of the closet and stay in the house? I think so, but I’m still trying to work out how.

Is Y&R the big loser of 2008? I think it might be ATWT

Roger Newcomb wrote last Friday that Y&R lost the most viewers in 2008. In absolute terms, he is right. But a different cut of the numbers tells a different tale...and suggests (to me) that ATWT is in the greatest jeopardy.

This is really an archive of two posts I did at Soap Opera Network.

When it comes to ratings, I am all about "the trend".

So, the week-to-week ratings are less interesting to me, except insofar as they speak to the larger trend.

Below is the SON/Toups' ratings from the first week of the year (beginning 12/31/07) through the present, in summary form. I did this table on the HH ratings, but you get pretty similar results if you use the # of viewers. I realize the 18-39 female demo is the important one...but I'm more interested in the total eyeballs watching soaps.



I started thinking about this in reaction to Roger Newcomb's post on Friday, where (in the process of chiding SOD for their endless Victor covers) he said, in effect, Y&R lost the most viewers in the last year (800K), so why over-promote that show?

I replied at his blog and in mine, but I really wondered about the true declines for all soaps this year.

So, in the table above, I looked at the highest and lowest HH for each show. I take this as the much more useful index of decline, acknowledging that the minimum may be a point lower than the "usual low" for some shows. But still...

Suddenly, it gets hard to say "one show declined more than all others". It is true, in absolute viewers, Y&R lost the most, but if you look at % loss, the real losers are ATWT, GL and Days, with Y&R and GH in close behind.

(Now, Days and ATWT have both rebounded a little from their lowest ratings of the season...but in general I believe each show's minimum is a good reflection of where they are headed).

This is gasp-inducing. Pretty much 20-25% (1/5 to 1/4 of the audience!!!) losses across the board!! In that context, the relative preservation of AMC/OLTL is interesting...and makes one wonder if those shows have bottomed out, and have reached a stable minimum.

Now, elsewhere, I have said that the encouraging news from Soapnet, DVR viewing, and (I surmise...no numbers) online viewing suggest that these free-falls may not be quite as bad as they seem. Some of it may represent a movement away from broadcast.

But, with these numbers, our broadcasters and producers need to do a MUCH better job of following the people, and showing us where the people went. Because these numbers sure look like monotonic, unfettered decline!

With a quarter of the residual audience lost in a year, is it ANY WONDER that the networks have no interest in showing the Daytime Emmys anymore??

===

One more ratings-related post.

I thought it might be useful to look at the linear decline trajectories in the soaps this year. These are based on the maximum - minimum figures from my last post, averaged over the 45 weeks of season-to-date.

If you look at the raw ratings falls (first graph), it does look like Y&R experienced the most loss (and they did...in absolute terms).

The second graph may be more meaningful, because it puts all the shows in a common metric, and shows the decline from their 2008 high proportionally. If you can get over how appalling the overall slope of ALL the lines is, it sure makes you want to be AMC or OLTL .