Rationally and Respectfully Saving AMC/OLTL

The always-entertaining blogger of Daytime Confidential, Jamey Giddens, proposed a number of constructive, rational ways of trying to save AMC/OLTL. Note that each of his suggestions are respectful, business minded, free of insult. They seek to use the demographic and marketing clout of the devoted soap audience to make a logical case for the perpetuation of daytime drama.

I reproduce his suggestions below, and fill in my own "followup" in blue. These are all from the Sunday April 10, 2011 Twitter timeline of @Jamey_Giddens

1. Hearing a decision will be announced re: ABC Daytime THIS WEEK! Keep calling Anne Sweeney! (818) 460-7700
2. Neither are safe, but one could have more time. Keep calling, keep writing, I am serious. ABC wants out of the soap game.
3. Look up your local entertainment reporters at your local newsapers. Ask them to do articles in favor of ABC soaps.
4. Do the same for local morning talk shows, radio, etc. Tell them ABC's soaps are in danger and to do stories.
5. Tweet (poilitely) famous ABC soap fans/alum ala Rosie O'Donnell, Oprah, Roseanne Barr, Carol Burnett, Nathan Fillion. Ask 4 their help!
6. Snoop Dogg, Wendy Williams, etc.Make noise! Email top bloggers in mainstream, Perez, Just Jared, Michael Ausiello, Nikki Finke, etc.
7. Go to message boards like Daytime Royalty, the Soap Opera Network and Soap Opera Source forum and organize. (From MarkH: SoapCentral too)
8. Contact We Love Soaps, Michael Fairman, Carolyn Hinsey, Nelson Branco, whoever, just let the soap fans' collective voice be heard!
9. And remember, be polite and sane. Don't be talking all crazy and stuff. They already expect that from soap fans. Prove them wrong.
10. In your emails, point to the success of telenovelas, essentially Latin soaps that are winning timeslots in primetime.
11. It's not the soaps that need to go, it's the execs who have run out of ideas and ran them into the ground. Serialized stories are viable. (MarkH: the final bolded part seems most important to me...don't think we should add anti-exec rhetoric right now.)
12. Watch the commercials between ABC soaps this week. Write down the sponsors, contact those brands. Tell them you saw their product on ABCD.
13. Now is the time for sane, rational solutions 2 attempt to stave off a bloodbath.

Daytime on the Bubble: Renew/Cancel Index for Daytime

TVByTheNumbers has accurate "renew/cancel" index for primetime. A show's 18-49 rating is divided by network's average. See http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/the-renew-cancel-index for details.



I computed a renew/cancel for daytime,, dividing each show's 18-49 rating by the average of all 6 soaps. I couldn't really do a network-by-network renew/cancel (like the parent site does) because the pool of soaps is too small. I guess I could use the network daytime average (if I could find equivalent ratings for The View and the Talk, etc)...but I think what I did is already pretty informative.

In the Renew/Cancel index, numbers above 1 (the further above, the better) are "safe", around 1 are "bubble" and below 1 are "likely to be cancelled.

Renew/Cancel Index for Daytime, as of last week:
Y&R 1.43;
DAYS 1.05;
GH 1.05;
OLTL 0.95;
B&B 0.76;
AMC 0.76




Now, what makes this intriguing is the rumor, at Daytime Confidential, that ABC is seriously considering the future of its daypart, and whether to cancel a soap to make room for a talk show.

As once-stalwart (now lapsed) viewer of all ABC soaps, but especially AMC, this would make me sad.

Looking at those numbers, one wonders by B&B isn't similarly on the bubble?

Well, first of all, maybe it is. But, secondly, Les Moonves last year implied that it was one of the "special soaps", and therefore might survive. What could save B&B? Presumably the fact that it is the world's #1 most watched soap, and the international revenue helps the Bell family keep licensing costs extra-low for CBS? With a brand-new high tech opening sequence and a recent two-year renewal, B&B will survive at least as long as Stephanie Forrester (who currently has Stage IV lung cancer).

Should-less and savor more?

One the topics I mentioned wanting to address a few weeks ago was “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.” I’m going to meander just a bit to get there, ‘cause that’s what I do.

==

Back in 1988, I think, when I was in graduate school (and scraping by on about $500/month), I was shocked when I saw a new (to me) magazine at the grocery store, Soap Opera Weekly. I could scarcely imagine spending the money on it, but I did. It was not the last time.

As the magazine evolved, one of my favorite weekly features was “Marlena Delacroix”. In that era, there was precious little criticism available (in magazines, and I never even heard of e-mail until 1987…I didn’t discover Usenet as a soap community until 1989), and even less that was as erudite and well-argued as Ms. Delacroix. Wrapped in a humorous package of “moi” and “toi” and “mon ami”, it was addictive and thought provoking.

Therefore, several years back, when Marlena re-appeared on Jack Myers’ website, I was delighted and, being the true fanboy I am, sent her an email of gratitude and welcome. As she established her own site, I cheered and have visited regularly since.

In the best tradition of soapdom, Ms. Delacroix has used her own “veteran” status to nurture young talent. In this case, she introduced me (and many others) to two fabulous new voices (at least, voices we hadn’t heard before)…Patrick Erwin and Damon Jacobs. I’ve cited Patrick here many times (including in my penultimate post, before this one).

Damon, on Marlena’s site, works as the “Soap Shrink”. In that role, he tries to provide a cogent analysis of how our favorite dysfunctional characters have come to be as they are. For me, the insights he tries to provide into possible motivations and origins only deepens my enjoyment of the characters. Spinelli has Aspergers? I’m not sure, but it sure is fun to think about.

==

Soap Shrink led me to Damon’s own site, Absolutely Should-Less. Now, fair disclosure: Damon and I kind of share a profession (not really…but I work as a psychologist and methodologist in a university) as well as a soap obsession, so I’m probably especially interested in his insights.

I’m not alone. Just last week, the Canadian TV Guide’s Nelson Branco featured a list of “Should-less” guidelines for daytime.

Totally paraphrasing (and probably mis-characterizing…I hope not), I read Damon’s core message as having two key pieces: First, fight the triumph of the super-ego. Let go of the excessive shoulds and oughts that rule our behaviors (and bring us guilt and shame and all their attendant consequences), and live authentically and concordant with one's goals. Second, live in the now. Don’t focus on what should have been or what ought to be; take the current and controllable circumstances of your life and optimize your happiness and goal pursuit within that context.

From Damon’s site:

If you have ever experienced any stress or sadness from looking in the mirror and telling yourself you should lose weight, make more money, think smarter, look better, or be any different than who you are today, then you are suffering the consequences of devastating "shoulds" … What makes this book different from other self-help books is that it identifies the role and responsibility of media and culture in the creating and sustaining of harmful "shoulds." It recognizes how institutional racism, sexism, and homophobia play a significant role in determining one's self-esteem, and how the "status-quo" stands to benefit from individuals feeling bad about themselves.

A visit to Damon’s current site shows that in March he did a series on having the “Best Recession Ever”. With insights like “Lose the "should" about your money...at least for now,” and “Resist holiday gift-giving ‘shoulds’” and “Recognize the Recession in your mind”, Jacobs’ entries really show how the many expectations and obligations of our social world can really work to make the current economic crisis even more difficult, phenomenologically, than it needs to be. Consequently, closing one’s ears to media and social influences that shape our expectations, as well as taking a firm inventory of what we really need and want, can really help us weather the trials of these economic days.

Important messages! For any one of us who have laid waste to vast portions of our lives by listening to the “other” and not to ourselves, there cannot be better advice. Damon leads us to life than can be relatively free of the self-judgment that causes us to miss so many happy moments. And that is my segue back to the world of soaps….

==

...I am a regular participant on several soap opera boards and blogs, and there is a persistent place where I disagree with many of my colleagues. It goes something like this:

OTHERS (this is a mini-compendium): Soaps are in the current state they are because of creative bankruptcy. The “suits” made bad decisions to increase the ‘shock value’ and ‘youth appeal’ of the soaps. We can lay the blame at Gloria Monty’s feet. She started the disregard of veterans and history – the “youthquake” – that has ruined daytime with sensationalism. Moreover, the writing teams and executive producers of these shows should listen to the fans more. They should write genuine happiness more often. They should…

And on it goes.

ME: Soaps would be, more or less, where they are today regardless of a single creative decision. There are larger demographic and viewership factors at play. These factors have led to the ratings and economic decline of all of network television, not just soaps. Soaps would still be where they are because women no longer work at home as much, families don’t watch together as much. Moreover, each generation needs to identify its own cultural signposts, and soaps – sadly – are the signposts of our mothers and grandmothers.

So how does this relate to “Should-less”?

Take the cancellation of Guiding Light. I have read people say they would turn off CBS for cancelling the show. (Ignoring the 72 years of investment CBS has made). I have seen desperation to continue the show elsewhere (and that worries me that anticipatory socialization, to prepare for the show’s passing, is not being done). I have seen so much anger directed at a host of past creative types (Jill Farren Phelps, John Conboy, Paul Rauch, Mary Alice Dwyer Dobbin, Ellen Weston, Ellen Wheeler, David Kreizman, and on and on).

In all the blame and rancor, it seems likely to me that for some fans, the light might go out in a blaze of anger and recrimination.

Therewith goes the joy.

I think, whether in 2009 or 2016, the Guiding Light would have been extinguished sooner than later…even if Nancy Curlee or Douglas Marland had never stopped writing, and even if Gail Kobe had never stopped producing, and even if Ed Trach were still at P&G. It would have happened. Because forces outside of daytime and outside of creative influence are bringing us to this place. The genre is gradually passing, as all genres must.

What if we just threw the shoulds away? What if we savored what we were enjoying (Otalia! Phillip happens here! Shane and Dinah! Rick and Mindy! Might Reva survive and reunite with Josh before it is all over?)? What if we treasured these final days, and looked back on the 72 or 57 or whatever years of enjoyment? And let the rest go?

Instead of focusing on the myriad shoulds that might have given GL a tiny bit more of (maybe lower quality) life, what if we looked back in gratitude and thanks? What if we used the rich gift of a lifetime of GL, and used it to inspire our next creative pursuit? What if, in stormy times, we looked back on moments we once enjoyed, and took comfort in having known Springfield?

Let me also say, this is not specific to GL. As I have expressed elsewhere on this blog, I think every one of us soap fans will experience this in the near future. Shall we repeat the litany of blame and anger each time? Or is there another way? "Thanks for the memories"?

Damon’s lessons for living, I think, can help us through this sunsetting of the genre. Indeed, with regard to GL, I think there may already be some good models, like DaytimeDirect and the GL Appreciation thread at SoapOperaNetwork. I'd encourage those who are angry to maybe look at these sites. I think they might help.

Patrick Erwin's Domino hypothesis: Wacky?

Patrick blogged on his website today, reacting to a TVWeek columnist who apparently felt that Patrick's "domino thesis", expressed thusly

”Understand that if GL is canceled, it will start a domino effect. If/when GL and/or DAYS disappears, you can expect other shows to follow quickly in their footsteps.”

was "wacky".

Since I'm all about understanding causal factors and modeling them, this domino hypothesis (what some statisticians would call a Markov chain) is very intriguing to me? In the end, I do not believe that the proposition that the fall of GL will contribute to the fall of other soaps is a testable one. Intuitively, I think he has a point, though.

============

1. Per se, the cancellation of Guiding Light will have no necessary effect on any other soap. Just like canceling, say Jericho, had no effect for CBS on Criminal Minds or CSI:Everywhere, I don't think that cancelling GL will necessarily impact any other show.

============

2. Will cancellation lead to more or less promotion for other soaps? It really doesn't matter. The loss of GL, in principle, costs a promotion venue for other soaps, pitched at soap watchers. But the reality is that a daytime replacement (say Pyramid) could have soap promotions, and they might actually be more effective, because they might court new non-soap viewers. Moreover, with one recent exception (CBS' promotion of Y&R's Sudden Impact arc), there is no evidence AT ALL that promotion influences short-term ratings. In October 2007, for example, CBS bought ad time on other networks to promote its Y&R Out of the Ashes arc...and ratings actually went down.

============

3. It is the "taint of death" that may kill them all. I think there is much greater risk to the genre in further heightening the widespread understanding that daytime is a dying genre. Phil Rosenthal writes in today's Chicago Tribune that

The laws of physics don't change: Mass times acceleration still equals force. But with audiences splintering across an ever-widening spectrum of content, individual mass media outlets simply don't have as much mass as they used to, leaving acceleration to pick up the slack—and it's the speed with which word of that content travels rather than the content itself that creates the impact...."Light" has its own devoutly faithful followers, to be sure, although that number has declined. When it comes to daytime drama, people are far more likely to be talking about the latest blowup on ABC's "The View" which averages 4.25 million viewers.

Translation: "buzz" matters. And the cancellation of Guiding Light, he would argue, is in part because it was no longer buzzworthy. (That's wrong, by the way. Proof: Otalia).

But, in support of Patrick's thesis, the cancellation of Guiding Light produces a followup negative buzz. If "Grandma's soap" or "the oldest soap" or "the only soap to survive radio" dies, it doesn't take much for some cultural consumers to further understand that soaps are a dying genre. And that WILL influence their likelihood of sampling other soaps.

Case in point: "Disco Sucks":

Only by killing disco could rock affirm its threatened masculinity and restore the holy dyad of cold brew and undemanding sex partners. Disco bashing became a major preoccupation in 1977. At the moment when Saturday Night Fever and Studio 54 achieved zeitgeist status, rock rediscovered a rage it had been lacking since the '60s, but this time the enemy was a culture with "plastic" and "mindless" (read effeminate) musical tastes. Examined in light of the ensuing political backlash, it's clear that the slogan of this movement--"Disco Sucks!"--was the first cry of the angry white male. -- Peter Braunstein

The 'Disco Sucks' campaign was a white, macho reaction against gay liberation and black pride more than a musical reaction against drum machines. In England, in the same year as the 'Disco Sucks' demo in America, The Young Nationalist - a British National Party publication - told its readers: 'Disco and its melting pot pseudo-philosophy must be fought or Britain's streets will be full of black-worshipping soul boys.'...Then WLUP-DJ Steve Dahl is credited by many with singlehandedly ending the disco era. On July 12, 1979, after several smaller anti-disco events, Dahl's "Disco Demolition" between games of a twi-night doubleheader at old Comiskey park, ended up with the field completely trashed, and the White Sox forced to forfeit the second game.

It is this reinforcement of soaps as a dying genre ... in the minds of ad executives, network leaders, and cultural consumers that could, in effect, be a Donna-Summer-style-soap-killer.

============

4. But here's the thing: Soaps are dying. Short of holding on to GL as some kind of public/historical service, soaps are dying. My recent post with some new prediction models kind of illustrates that inescapable conclusion, I think (albeit, with a little hope thrown in).

In that sense, I really think it is important not to over-inflate the significance of the GL cancel.

Really, truly, rationally, we knew this was coming. Some of us thought it might wait till 2010, but Ellen Wheeler talked candidly about this with the GL bloggers late last year.

Moreover, as that figure above shows, most of us kind of know the pecking order of impending cancellations, and that hasn't changed since GL's cancellation. It is "foreordained" by the numbers and the trends...and the sad fact that for most of the population soaps are now as hopelessly out of date as disco and Lawrence Welk and manual typewriters.

Cultural obsolesence, coupled with changing daytime demographics and changing advertiser economics is what did this.

============

5. Whither soap opera? Maybe that is more correctly asked as "what is the future of the serial?"

The future is not in the daytime. The future is not melodramatic. The future is not necessarily woman-oriented. The future is not daily. The future is not on broadcast TV.

The evolution is being televised.

Friday Night Lights. ER. Brothers and Sisters. Lost. True Blood. Continuing themes in NCIS. The serial is really alive and well. Adult drama is live and well (well, thanks to Jay Leno on NBC...maybe not so well right now).

The soap -- a particular commercial form for women to "listen" to at home while ironing and cooking -- that is on the way out. For those of us who loved it, that is lamentable...but we can take comfort in all the contributions soaps have made for most of the 20th century and a smidgen of the 21st.

============

6. Wacky? Not at all. Not one bit. But the use of that word "wacky" is a fundamental one--and it displays the kind of cultural bias that soaps have had to work against from the beginning.

• Too commercial (e.g., James Thurber's "Anacinville")
• Too women-oriented (melodrama produces eye rolls in the network executive)
• Too emotional and relationship oriented (that's basically misogyny and, in more recent times, homophobia)
• Too old (When we call them "grandma's stories", we're basically buying into both ageism, and the prevailing belief that generations can't share popular culture)

Wacky is just the latest line of insults that soaps and their supporters have had to endure. So, as we have for the better part of a century, our best course of action is to ignore the insulters. Because they do not understand how these "worlds without end" have given us a sense of home and narrative throughline that runs through our lives. They cannot know what we will be missing, because they never had the joy of experiencing it for themselves in the first place.

Optimism/Another Graph/GL's fate is not Ellen Wheeler's fault

A persistent irritant for me is the claim that the fate of GL (and all soaps) is due to "bad writing" and mismanagement. Ellen Wheeler is heralded as the anti-Christ. If not she, then Paul Rauch, John Conboy, Ellen Weston, Jill Farren Phelps, Mary Alice Dwyer Dobbin and a whole cast of villains gets blamed for what happened.

I have tried to prove here, elsewhere that:

- the rate of decline is virtually identical for all the soaps; excluding small variations (where soaps jockey for different positions in the rank order) they've all gone down in lockstep
- no 'resurgence' (not even GH's celebrated early 80s triumph) has had any long-term impact on the decline process that started in the 1970s or earlier (and became clearly manifest by 1980)
- indeed, in the last decade, the rate of decline in daytime has mirrored that of primetime, suggesting that the problem may be more related to "broadcast TV" than soaps in particular.

I've been called naive, immature and misguided for this. I still think I am right :). When the same thing happens to every show, you have to believe it is something about the industry or the genre or the platform.

What I believe is that the creative state of soap CAN influence its relative position. For example, I think the reason Y&R has been consistently #1 for almost two decades relates, in part, to its use of a consistent cast, production style, narrative throughline from the beginning. "Jill and Kay", two presently front burner characters, were both on the front burner in 1973. I also think CBS and her affiliates have been more supportive of Y&R, scheduling the show during a higher-viewership time (lunchtime, for many), and not punting the show all over the daypart.

But, even Y&R has declined, more or less, at the same rate as all the other shows. Which tells me, as someone who thinks a lot about "systems level processes" in my day job, that this is more about factors extrinsic to soaps.

In the past, therefore, I (erroneously?) concluded that all soaps are going to follow this death trajectory. By using some simplified projections (a linear rate of decline that is constant for all soaps) I went so far as to say the last soap, Y&R, might be cancelled in 2016.

Now, I think I might be wrong. At the behest of several posters at SON, I redid the above analysis, making a few changes: First, I did not require linear decline (that is important, because it means that if any show seems to be "levelling off" in decline, this new model will pick that up). Second, I did not impose the same decline slope for all shows -- I let the actual data from the past decade, for each show, determine the decline slope. Using that, and picking an arbitrary cancellation criterion of Household Neilsen Rating = 1.5 (which I picked out of thin air), some interesting things happened.

• First, I replicated some of my previous findings: It would appear that ATWT, DOOL, AMC and OLTL are all on a pretty unstoppable "death" trajectory (but only if my assumptions are right!).
• Second, three soaps (GH, Y&R, B&B) would seem to have the possibility of levelling off. Which means, if you project into the reasonable future (e.g., 2013), there is no reason to project (on strictly quantitative groups) that they will reach the cancellation threshold.

Is the rate of decline REALLY levelling off? Well, I plotted the four-year HH ratings (which I realize many don't care about, because it's all about the 18-49 female demo, but I care more about how many absolute Live+Same Day viewers a show gets), and sure enough, the slope of descent has apparently slowed from higher rates earlier in the decade.



"A little hope, a little romance, a big fat bulge in the hero's pants" (from Soaps in the Bunker).

Thank you, Guiding Light. A lesson taken from ER's goodbye

For fourteen of its fifteen years, I have been a loyal viewer of ER (the first year I lived overseas). I consider ER a "soap" (in the sense that it is a serial drama with an ensemble cast), but it was an innovative one stylistically and narratively. Although ratings fell over the years, and the format became less fresh, I found it an enjoyable run. You'd think I would have been choked up at the series finale, but it was done so lovingly (returning vets, going out with a full-blast sense of energy [this is not an ending...it's just that our time of being there with County General has passed], circle-of-life promises [oh look, there's Mark Greene's daughter!] and metaphors of death to help us through the ending [Earnest Borgnine's heart-breaking performance]), how can one do anything but say "Thanks for the memories".

As a "soap", ER defied a lot of the assumptions of today's disgruntled viewers. "Shaky cam" production model? Look--ER pioneered it. Departing vets? The show did fine on the backs of newbies...in the final seasons (not counting guest stints) not a single original starring/front-burner cast member remained. Still, even with a show that strong, there is something about this long-form that is stifling. By staying true to its identity, ER eventually became just a little stale. Which means, as good as it was, the numbers fell (in part because of what happened to broadcast TV in general, but even the relative position of ER on Thursdays at 10 pm was clearly no longer a 'juggernaut'). It was just a little less 'must see', because it was repeating itself.

However, there is no sense in which this 'series finale' was a failure! Indeed, in a move of utter beauty, the writers brought back Ernest Borgnine, who had to sit back and let his wife die. "Is there nothing we can do?" he implored. No, said the doctors. It is time. When the last monitor was switched off, his searching eyes asked "Is that it?". Yes. A complicated life (her daughter loved her, but her husband treasured her), well lived, had come to a timely conclusion. Everything has a lifespan, and our job is to treasure what came before death, and not to perseverate on the death itself. Ernest's character got to lay with his wife's body a few minutes longer, to say a proper goodbye. As we did, with ER.

And so I turn to Guiding Light. First, my sympathies to the millions of fans who still loved her. I was never a regular viewer, but I would feel the same grief -- the same hole in my life -- if my long-running soap (they're ALL long-running at this point) were to disappear. I also know that, in the minds of some viewers, Guiding Light is not dead. P&G's press release says they're trying to find a new home, and so forth. For those banking on these new options, I wish you best of luck, even as I confess that the failure to let go makes me a little uneasy.

I can't help but think that there is a lesson in dignity, fitting endings, letting go, and so forth, in what we experienced with ER.

72 years! My goodness, how can that be viewed as anything but a beautiful, excellent, never-to-be-repeated thing? I have read angry viewers saying "I'll never watch CBS again" or "How dare CBS do this?!?". This network gave 72 years of air time to this show (and made a lot of money doing so). Does the inevitable act of cancellation (the lifespan of no entity is infinite) negate the foregoing decades? Not for me....

The objective facts show that GL was at the bottom of the soap ratings for at least a decade, was experiencing a faster-than-other decline rate in the recent years, earned a lot of fan and critical disgruntlement for both its storytelling and production style (offset by a recent glorious resurgence in part of the canvas). Affiliates time shifted the show all over the map. In many ways, the fact that GL remained alive in 2009 was a miracle...a testament to the pluckiness of its EP, the resolve of the parent company and -- yes -- even the unusual patience of its network. In the end, especially in a depleted economy, CBS' patience could not be boundless. But bless them for giving it this long.

As I look at the impressive "petitions" devised to save GL (over 3,600 signatures in 24 hours, for the one I saw), the comments are stunning. "I'm the sixth generation to watch this show". "I watched with my grandmother and mother, and now my daughter watches with me." "I remember Roger Thorpe", "I remember Beverley McKinsey". On and on it goes, a beautiful river of nostalgia.

But there's the rub. Almost nothing in those comments says "Oh, I sure miss the Manny supercouple" or "I really most love Grady and Cyrus". The sadness is for a GL that used to be, not one that exists today.

There are exceptions. Phillip Spaulding's return has clearly energized the show, and Otalia (the budding lesbian romance) has genuinely touched hearts. Are these stories a case of "too little, too late"? Not in my mind. Hell No! Instead, they are a remarkable gift to the fans: GL has a chance of going out on a high note! What a wonderful thing!

My wish, for the fans of GL, is that we get an ER-style send off. Someone, tipping the hat to the cultural institution GL was and all the money that it once made, should let the stories return to the veterans, bring back all the loved ones from the past (like ER) for a final goodbye. If we are left with the sense that Springfield will keep on going, and only that our (the viewers') sojourn through the fields has passed, that can be quite satisfying. Because then the show can live on in our imaginations. (That is why P&G/Telenext should move no GL characters to ATWT!! Let GL pass with dignity!)

There is something to be said for letting this dear old girl go out with smiles and fanfare and happiness and "thanks for the memories".

One of my favorite songs is "From Where I Stand" by Amanda McBroom. How about, as we say farewell to one of the last of Irna Phillips' grand shows, we honor the spirit of these words?

From where I stand
I see the bridges burning
From where I stand
Our love is goin' down

So close your eyes,
it isn't worth the cryin'
The sun will rise
and dry your tears away
And no, there's no hard feelings
I wish you all the best
Just leave behind your memory,
the devil take the rest.
And I watch you turn and walk away
I find there's nothin' left to say
I can't go back to yesterday
I'll never find the way.
From where I stand.

What J. Bernard Jones Started (Part 2)

(Part 1 is here, Part 3 is here, and the source article that inspired this post is here. And thanks to Sound and Fury for the shoutout!).

=========

Part 2. Anticipatory Socialization and Illusory Control.

In his excellent "Soap on a Rope" blog entry, J. Bernard Jones wonders:

Once a particular narrative has taken hold in the minds of fans it can be hell trying to ask folk to consider a slightly different view. Nonetheless, I think it's worth a try.

I am willing to admit that I could be completely wrong. However, I am reminded of something that my late mother used to say all the time: when you speak things into existence, they are liable to come true. Another way of saying it is "be careful what you wish for..."

Do the fans want Soap Opera do disappear? No, I do not believe we do. But there is something a little off in the incessant negativity in some quarters about the possibility/probability of it all, as if some fans are all but waiting for the final episode of General Hospital or the last fade out of Y&R to say, "See, we told you so! Nobody listened to us! If they had paid attention to the fans this genre would have been saved! We're the fans! We know everything there is to know about this genre and if the idiots in charge had only listened, we would still have love in the afternoon!"

This is powerful stuff. You need not look very far to see the incredible negativism in most quarters regarding soaps. Where does it come from?

I think there are two main sources (beyond group-think...which is really an important factor on internet message boards and has personally influenced me; when bright, articulate people make passionate and persuasive arguments, and there is widespread agreement...it is hard not to follow along): anticipatory socialization and illusory control.

===========

Let's start with the definitions.

Per Wikipedia:

Anticipatory socialization: Anticipatory socialization refers to the processes of socialization in which a person "rehearses" for future positions, occupations, and social relationships.

A typical example cited here is that of an older married woman who experiences the death of many of her friends' husbands. Even though her husband is still living, she knows his time is likely to come too...and she, like her friends, will be an older single woman. So, in her mind, in small subtle ways, often unconsciously, she starts rehearsing for life without him. She makes sure she knows where the paperwork is. She makes sure she has a credit card in her own name. She even thinks, in her daydreams, sometimes, about how she will handle parties and responsibilities, etc, when he is gone.

This is the process, it is said, that often makes widowhood relatively easier for older women than for younger women. For younger women, it is a total shock...they didn't expect it! But for older women, while still sad and life-altering, the shock is blunted by expectation. (I'm not being sexist here. This is mostly a female phenomenon since, on average, men do not expect to outlive their wives. I'm also not being homophobic; this is pretty much a unique phenomenon of heterosexual marriages). There are other times when this kind of socialization occurs, as in when a loved one is passing from a long, protracted terminal illness. Or when a teenager practices, in their own mind, for adult roles.

Illusory control: the tendency for human beings to believe they can control, or at least influence, outcomes that they demonstrably have no influence over.

The same source has this nice illustration:

One simple form of this fallacy is found in casinos: when rolling dice in craps, it has been shown that people tend to throw harder for high numbers and softer for low numbers. Under some circumstances, experimental subjects have been induced to believe that they could affect the outcome of a purely random coin toss. Subjects who guessed a series of coin tosses more successfully began to believe that they were actually better guessers, and believed that their guessing performance would be less accurate if they were distracted.

An illusion of control over certain external events could be a basis for belief in psychokinesis.

==========

Okay, I think you know where I am going here.

I do not think the animus that many of us have encountered about the soap genre is simply function-less, free form negativism. I think that what we are seeing are typical, normal, healthy emotional responses to a "terminal condition". It doesn't surprise us that both anticipatory socialization and illusory control are often discussed in the context of "dealing with death". It is all about going through grieving steps.

This anger is a "rage, rage against the dying of the light". We talk (and talk and talk) about the soap-less days to come, in part, because it will blunt the pain when that day (soon) comes. This is not being done with relish or pleasure. Instead, it is like bracing for a blow. Moreover, for lovers of the soap genre, we need to do it.

Take Another World for example. The people who were most hurt by that cancellation were those who felt it could be avoided. The protesters, the people who blamed the network and TPTB. When the show was cancelled, some even boycotted NBC. The anger was a roaring fire in them. That is because they had not, in advance, accepted the inevitability of the outcome.

I contrast this with the current fan animus about Guiding Light. The writing is so UTTERLY on the wall, it might as well be hieroglyphs. But, honestly, I think the fan-bashing of Ellen Wheeler and the show is ultimately a way of focusing a diffuse anger about the myriad factors that brought us to this point. In other words, Ellen is a convenient target. GL dropped to the near-bottom of the soap rankings in the EIGHTIES. Ellen was still playing Marley when that happened. Where GL is today is only, in SMALL measure, her fault.

So why all the rage? First, for mental preparation.

But second, to give the illusion of control.

I get my angriest comments and emails when I write about the idea that "no matter what, no matter who was creatively in charge, soaps would still be where they are today." I have written, on a soap board, that "Irna Phillips and Bill Bell and Douglas Marland could come back from the dead, and still the soaps would be in their current state". People HATE when I say that. Because it implies that broad a set of social forces is responsible for the state of daytime...not creative and corporate malfeasance.

The thing is, if you look at my last post, daytime really is going where all of US broadcast TV is going. This is NOT just about daytime.

But people--especially we Americans--have a very very hard time with concepts like "inevitability", "uncontrollable", etc. The "blame TIIC" theme that is across the board is a very American reaction to the current daytime situation. The must be someone to blame. There must be a way to fix it. There must be hope and optimism that if only a "savior" came along, daytime could be fixed.

I don't think so...I really don't. Zoot suits are gone, except as nostalgia items. So are genuine-article 1960s Thunderbirds. So are eight track cassettes. Each of these had their day. There is no one to blame...this is the march of time and the evolution of fashion, fad, and technology.

Who killed Cock Robin? (err...I mean daytime). All of us.

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!

GL is the new low

Earlier this week I reported that ATWT, with its 30% loss of viewers (between the maximum and minimum of the calendar year) was the biggest proportional loser of viewers in 2008.

Well, ratings released today at SON show GL hit a new household low rating of 1.4. With that, GL takes the "biggest loser" slot, with a loss of 31%.

I am not a regular viewer of GL, so I cannot comment on the show's creative state. Casual readers of the soap fan networks reveals that many long time viewers do not like GL's new production model, but more importantly, they feel the show has little narrative connection to its' history. Most fan favorites are gone or rarely seen, and some claim there are few intersecting stories with long-term payoff. I don't know if any of that is true.

I know that constant doom-filled signs for GL bring me no joy. Daytime's most venerable soap should not fade out like this. For a long time it has not been helped by less than 100% clearances on CBS and a wide array of timeslots (e.g, 10 am in New York).

At the point, with the clearly faster-rate-of-decline than other shows (ominous since the show was already at the bottom of the heap), it seems clear that fans have not accepted the new writing style or production model. While I applaud the experiment (I have in another post), if this were a drug trial, it would be time to say "stop--the experimental drug is killing the patient".

In contrast, two of the other bottom soaps (OLTL, AMC) have experienced much less proportional decline this year...and lately there are some hints of rebound

Now what, for GL?

There are signs that GL is trying some repair. Heralded returns of Grant Alexander, David Andrew McDonald might...just might...suggest that the show realizes it needs some anchor in popular legacy characters.

At the same time, the history of daytime soaps shows that when fans leave, they don't come back, and new viewers do not replace them (Jack Peyton axiom).

It really is like watching cancer ravage a loved one, and nothing can stop it. There comes a place when you pray for euthansia or merciful release. As a long-time viewer of another soap (Y&R), a piece of my soul -- really, I'm not being melodramatic -- will be lost forever when that show dies. But at some point I'd rather see that than what seems to be happening to GL now.

Planning the funeral for Guiding Light

After last week's ratings, where GL hit its all time low, SON poster LoyaltoAMC said:

Ouch to GL. I think most of us can agree that it's time to pull the plug.

Well, let's talk about this for a minute.

Couldn't that be a fan campaign? An unprecedented one? "The campaign for a dignified mercy killing for GL"?

Right now, it has only been renewed till 2009, right? So, it seems likely we're going to see it die anyway.

But, to help TPTB make the right decision (and not protract the suffering further), a fan campaign to AFFIRM that the show should be allowed to sleep could be waged.

Now, the campaign should have a PURPOSE. What? Well, I don't have personal information here, since I never really watched, but the fans could lobby for the return of Nancy Curlee to usher the show to her death.

For such a specific request, for such a delimited purpose, and for such a noble and important task (to give the show a good end), Curlee might actually agree. There would need to be SOME budget to bring back some favorites to close out stories and to "bring the family home at the end". I'm talking about folks like Grant Alexander...but also others who are not tied to other shows. CBS might agree to do this, so as not to risk eternal fan enmity for the rest of its daypart.

The show could actually plan a dignified death. Indeed, though it is a bit out there, I'd have a real wish (since this is Guiding LIGHT). I'd be inspired by the terrific little Canadian film starring Don McKellar and Sandra Oh. Taglines for that movie included "It's not the end of the world... there's still six hours left", "Party like there is no tomorrow...because there isn't!", and "It's your last night on earth. Go out in style." Basically, though never stated explicitly, the Sun was about to go supernova...and everyone was planning for the big explosion at the end.

So, for Guiding Light, what could be more appropriate than the Light going out? It would be a brief nod to bad stories of the past (Clone Reva; Magical Painting), but mostly to set up a situation where everyone gathers round and says goodbye.

It is the very final image that haunts me. Focus on the sun...bright...looking rather like a...beacon. And then it strobes. And the light reaches out to cover the entire screen, maybe with a little whoosh sound (like there used to be when the lighthouse beams circled round-and-round in the GL opening). Fade to white.

I'm no scriptwriter...but I'd rather see the show plan a decent, heartwarming end than what it is offering now.

===

Well, this seems to have inspired SON poster Khan, who wrote:

Include a final montage beforehand (set to this song) which features all the characters, both veterans and newbies, reconciling, forging new friendships and alliances, and generally moving forward with their lives, and you have a deal.

For those who can't be bothered to follow the link, he is referring to The Eagles and their song I Wish You Peace from the album One of These Nights (1975). Reading the lyrics, that is a perfect suggestion. It shows that an ending can be not just sad, but beautiful.

I wish you peace when the cold winds blow
Warmed by the fire's glow
I wish you comfort in the, the lonely time
And arms to hold you when you ache inside

I wish you hope when things are going bad
Kind words when times are sad
I wish you shelter from the, the raging wind
Cooling waters at the fever's end

I wish you peace when times are hard
The light to guide you through the dark
And when storms are high and your, your dreams are low

I wish you the strength to let love grow on,
I wish you the strength to let love flow,

I wish you peace when times are hard
A light to guide you through the dark
And when storms are high and your, you dreams are low
I wish you the strength to let let grown on,
I wish you the strength to let love flow,
I wish you the strength to let love glow on
I wish you the strength to let love go on.

Estimated time of death...or the last soap will be cancelled in 2016

So, on June 19, RocketMan compared the ratings for the preceding week to a year before.

Comparing the ratings from a year ago, Y&R still suffered the biggest loss in the ratings: **(last week/last year) June 3-9, 2008 1-Y&R 3.5 (same/-.5)** 2-B&B 2.6 (same/-.2)** 3-GH 2.2 (-.1/-.3)** 4-OLTL 2.1 (-.1/-.2)** 5-AMC 2.0 (-.2/-.3)** 6-ATWT 1.9 (same/-.2)** 6-DAYS 1.9 (+.1/-.2)** 8-GL 1.6 (same/-.3)**

To me, these figures tell the real story. All soaps are down across the board. That's the general trend, and shows where the industry is heading...and it has nothing to do with week-by-week promotion.

The other interesting story is that the AVERAGE one-year decline is greatest for CBS soaps (esp. flagship Y&R). That tells the other big story...CBS is in free fall.

Put these together, and you get the big picture. These little weekly blips in response to promotion etc...we really can disregard them :-).

Indeed, the enduring message that keeps on being clear is that (a) returning big name stars, or ( hiring big name stars from other shows or © short term stunt casting does NOTHING for ratings. Usually, it doesn't even manifest in a brief one-week blip. BUT, if it does, the blip is invariably small, and does NOTHING to stem the average downward trend.

Look at it this way...across all soaps, the one-year decline has been about .3 or so.

Let's assume that is a linear function, and constant across all soaps (I know these are big assumptions, but play with me). Where does that bring us?

While we're at it, let's make one other TINY little assumption: Soaps are automatically cancelled when they reach a rating of 1.0 or lower.

The first graphic shows the resulting table.





This flawed projection says that we lose GL in 2010 (i.e., this last renewal was its last). It says 2011 is the year of hemmorhage and bloodshed, with Days, OLTL, AMC, and ATWT all leaving us. By the way, that's about right (maybe a year late) given recent contract extensions for Days and ATWT. It says both shows will get one last renewal. Finally, the mighty tumble. We lose GH in 2012, B&B in 2013. Y&R hangs on all the way to 2016.

Of course, I know this is nonsense. Decline is actually FASTER than linear right now. Rank orders shift weekly. The 0.3 loss per year is too global. Still, for me, this kind of figure clearly illustrates inevitability. I'm probably off by a year or so here or there. But basically, this is my anticipated future. I'd love to be proven wrong.