What? OLTL is hot, but no ratings bump?

Week to week writing DOES NOT AFFECT THE RATINGS in a meaningful way. Yes, we may see dips and valleys of .1 or .2...but those are trivial. Those are simple random variations around the moving average. This larger trend, of course, is decline and death.

The best analogy I can give is in the muscle strength of an adult from the age of 50 to 100. NO MATTER WHAT THAT PERSON DOES, there will be steady decline and descent in muscle THAT CANNOT BE PREVENTED. Now, there may be week to week fluctuations in strength. "I walked more this week...so I'm a little stronger". That is true! And if the person really works on the muscle, there may even be growth and maintenance. But, in the long haul, the muscle is going to continue to decline and decline and decline. This is called the "inevitability of aging", which is defined as "universal, progressive, deleterious, and irreversible". Hmmmm...that sounds a lot like the ratings trends, doesn't it?

So, how to bring this back on topic? Well, personally, I think the excellence of a Carlivati, and powerful returns like Tina and Marty CAN make a difference...but not in the short run. What you need is a year (actually, they used to say, in the 70s and earlier, five years) of sustained quality to build an audience. I remember John Conboy said that repeatedly about Y&R in the 70s: Five years was the minimum needed for audience building.

Who thinks ABC has five years of patience and five years of budget to let Carlivati work his magic? Who thinks Carlivati has the energy and creativity to sustain five great years? (He may. Many have been complaining that he is reheating the past, rather than creating something new, but he is also trying to honor the 40th anniversary...so he needs some latitude to do this homage AND rebuild the classic base, pace and face of OLTL).

Can you tell it drives me nuts when people expect instant payoffs from stunt casting and the like? WHAT I WOULD EXPECT is (a) a slower rate of decline for OLTL than other shows, and possibly (a gradual 0.2 HH points per year, maybe) increase in the moving average IF ABC/OLTL commits to a five-year plan. (I'm not so sure about the gain, since the whole TV and soap enterprise is in decline...so it is hard to fight the overall contextual trend).

I realize this will never happen. But when we look for meaningful week-by-week variations, we simply are persisting in the face of the fact that these variations are not meaningful.

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.

The template for the next generation of soaps

I think serials are alive and well. All the recent hits on the now-faded HBO were serials. All the current hits on the now-hot Showtime are serials. Most of the sci fi genre shows that hit are serials. Heroes, specifically, is a serial. Fox Network's big drama (not its' biggest, though), 24, is a serial. American Idol is a serial (and I realize this is stretching the definition--but the success of all those weekly reality shows with eliminations shows there IS an audience for shows that require a regular commitment).

Almost no hit movie gets away without a sequel or a trilogy...especially in the action domain.

Don't even start on things like the Harry Potter books series, or most mystery/detective franchises, or the hot new Stephanie Meyer series for young adults. I emphasize this because the kids CAN embrace serials...just not grandmothers' stories.

So, I can't vouch for whether the serial is the MOST popular format, but it is sure up there.

To this post at SON, user Sylph asked me:

Have you read this New York Times piece?

The gist of this, of course, is that following the initial success of Lost, other similar serials did not take root...and Lost has since lost viewers. Ergo, the serial market is saturated or, at best, weak.

I'm not sure I agree. Hollywood is having enormous success with serials and "franchises"...certainly in books and films. That means that audiences COME BACK.

And Harry Potter, as a direct example, is not just "sequels"...this was a planned serial in 7 parts. There was an ENORMOUS appetite for this in books, audiobooks, films, DVD rentals, and TV broadcast ratings. Given that it was the young-reader audience that drove this market, I believe it confirms BOTH an appetite (or at least not a distaste) for the serial format, and that this appetite exists even in the up-and-coming market.

So what about Lost? Well, the initial 16-million viewer (or whatever) success of the show was a bit surprising for a "genre" show. So, some loss is normal just given the kind of show it is. Also, the serial appreciation of the show may have been harmed by the interrruptions...in the early seasons we'd see 3 or 5 shows, and then there would be a break. In the recent seasons we had planned "mini-seasons" and then the "WGA strike" (which harmed viewership ACROSS THE BOARD). So what is more important for Lost is to judge the PROPORTIONAL loss of viewers, and whether that loss exceeds that of primetime in general, or the typical trend for aging shows. Only then can we really judge whether there is something special going on, and whether that is in fact due to the serial nature of Lost.

Still, it raises the question of whether even WEEKLY serials are too much of a commitment to request from the modern audience. Did Harry Potter work because the audience got years to rest between episodes (allowing the hunger to build)? Maybe... I point again to American Idol, though. That has a huge (but shrinking) viewer base that returns weekly. So I think when tension and compelling cliffhangers are adequate, viewers WILL return for regular doses.

The question now is how to take the unpredictable and must-see nature of a show like AI, and convert it into scripted drama.

===

Sylph then noted that serials lose viewers--harming their long-term prospects. And it is true...they always do. That doesn't bother me, but it does suggest that all serials have a life span.

This is a true peril of the serial format. All repeated human behavior (exercise, research study participation, church attendance) is characterized by attrition, or dropout. So, any entertainment requiring ongoing commitment will always experience a loss of audience at each recurrence. That is true for ALL continuing television, although I imagine it is more acute for serials that require a high level of narrative commitment.

But in the end, who wants to live forever? "I'm here for a good time, not a long time". I think when it comes to serial drama this credo is likely an essential component of the new template.

Ratings = quality? enjoyment? Nah...just habit

We had this thread over at Soap Opera Network, in which I picked up from Kay Alden's talk at MIT last year (where she equated soaps with "habit"). I thought I'd post a bit of that here:

It all started when poster Jess said:

Ratings may not equate to quality, but the do reflect what people find enjoyable to watch. In that sense ratings certainly equate to viewer enjoyment. Santa Barbara was in my oopinion a good show, but it got cancelled because others did not like it. Because soap critics and other experts declare a show high quality certainly does not mean that the unwashed masses follow behind and sing its praises.

Now, I don't think ratings reflect (certainly in their weekly variations) either quality OR enjoyability.

I do not think so. I mean, clearly that is a part of the formula...but I think only a part.

Ratings equate to promotion, to what else is on in the lineup, and to HABIT. Some people will watch their show everyday, even when they are not enjoying it, because they know or hope it will get better, or because their favorite characters are on.

When we talk about quality or even enjoyability...but then see it fails to show up in the ratings...some people act surprised. But it doesn't work this way.

Soap watching is a habit for most loyal viewers, and the habit exists independent of day to day quality. It is only if a show maintains excellent quality over a long haul that you may help people develop the habit...because they know the show is good and it will pay off. Quality and enjoyability DO matter, but only in the LONG haul.

It is here that I think we may see a generational divide. I think older viewers may be more likely to watch out of habit. I think younger viewers have less patience and less history with the show...and they are somewhat more likely to watch based on what is currently happening. I still think--even with young viewers--that this weekly variation in quality or enjoyability is not a huge factor, because the weekly variations in ratings are quite small.

The ratings trends from year to year tell us that more and more people are "getting out of the habit". That is the real story. So, if executives want to strengthen the shows, they have to stop thinking about stunt casting and short term story arcs. They have to think about how to get people in the habit, and then keep them trapped in the habit.

GHJunkie4Life disagreed and said:

If ratings are due to people just watching out of "habit" then why are they decreasing across the board for ALL soaps? If it were this unbreakable habit that some people claim they are then shouldn't the ratings be roughly the same week to week?

The way to explain this is smoking. Social forces (public health messages, public disdain for smoking, smoking prohibition laws, and rising taxes) worked together to inform people that smoking was a habit that should be broken. Consequently, you see a trend of smoking decline ACROSS ALL SMOKING BRANDS. Because it reflects a so-called "secular trend".

So, the same thing is true for soaps--and I find this illustrative with regards to the deeper problem we are seeing with the genre. Soap across-the-board trends are JUST LIKE cigarette trends. Which means, for decades now, people have been abandoning the habit.

We have speculated elsewhere about why, and that is multi-causal...working women, less intergenerational viewing, abandonment of TV for new media, etc.

Another way to say this is that "soaps have gone out of fashion". And when we say that, it means that quality and satisfaction are kind of irrelevant. I can make a very well made set of flared jeans (i.e, wide at the boot). I can make them excellently, and the people who wear them can be very satisfied with them....but if they are out of fashion, sales will dwindle to zero.

The "out of fashion" indictment is serious...because that is not easily repaired. WHY did soaps go out of fashion? WHAT FACTORS became unappealing?

To me, that is a fascinating question. We know the serial format, per se, is alive and well. Most primetime drama and comedy now follows the serial format, and "dramatic elements" (serious stories, no laugh track) even characterize the sitcoms. So is it the daily thing that is killing the soaps? (Probably in large measure).

But I really suspect it is two other things: (a) the conceptualization of soaps as "grandma's stories", the inability of people to get past that, and the ( from-the-beginning stigmatization of these shows as melodramatic and unworthy of thinking viewers (hence, the perjorative term "soap opera" that drips with disdain). The soaps beget eye rolls from most normal thinking people. They will not get past their biases.

So, what we're left with (and I don't think this board is typical) is a viewer base of aged viewers that got "hooked" DESPITE stigma...and they stayed hooked...but they're dying off. And mostly their descendants can't stop holding their noses long enough to try and get hooked...or if they do, they find the high concept nonsense to silly to captivate their interest.

Soaps = paisley

Soaps = lava lamps

Soaps = avocado appliances

Soaps = lace doilies

So maybe it is not just people getting out of the habit, as I asserted before. Maybe it is also the fact that people who got in before the habit became TOO uncool are dying off, and nobody younger is willing to "disgrace" themself and get into these aged melodramas?

Therefore, we don't have a "replacement generation" of people who will contemplate picking up the habit. For them, the thought of watching a soap is odious. This is the same problem tobacco growers are facing...which is why they have searched so aggressively overseas for new markets.

A regular correspondent of mine at a usenet newsgroup talks about how she loved her soaps, and started watching with her parents. She said when her kids were at home, they always had the shows on (because she watched them). They would roll their eyes--especially as they got older--but they might even get interested for brief periods of time. But once they grew and left home, they never had an interest in picking them up again. Indeed, they only ever talk about the soaps now with disdain.

I think there are analogies to this in music. Young fans of hip hop often have NO INTEREST in their parents' rock and roll. It is "uncool". They use the rejection of their parents' music as a way of individuating themselves and establishing identity. The parents (and their music) were uncool, which renders the kids (and their music) cool. If you can't think of rock music as uncool, think of "country and western" or "big band" or "disco" or "folk".

For each of those genres, there are young fans who will REFUSE to listen or sample, because the very idea of those genres is uncool.

Now, if you repackage disco and give it a new name ("house" or "techno" or whatever), suddenly it can become cool again. But it has to be different and completely relabelled for a younger generation to endorse it. It is not just a relabelling. It is a reinvention.

You know those "music of your life" radio stations? Young people don't listen to them. They are old people stations...and when enough of the old people die, suddenly the format changes. Instead of the music of the "40s-50s-60s" it becomes "60s-70s-80s". Now, soaps are the "music of your life" for people who, on average, are in their fifties. New generations don't want to listen to that music...they want their own life music.

It is not just the soaps. As we have discussed elsewhere, nostalgia brands across the tuner are changing: Nick at Night/TVLand, GSN, AMC...all of them have had significant format changes because their core audiences are dying off/advertisers don't like their aged demos/their numbers are shrinking.

Soaps are the same. They are a nostalgia brand, and a habit from a bygone era. Not cool...like disco. Those who still make them are a little like KC and the Sunshine Band...they still make their rent with small town fairs, but they'll never be a relevant hit again. Those who still watch them (me! you!) are relics from a bygone era, who value yesterday's entertainment. That makes us quaint but--and I say this with enormous sadness--it does not make us meaningful consumers of the future. Future consumers have moved on. Tastes in entertainment have changed.

From vanhansis.net and Roger Newcomb

Cindy Lauper appears in Oakdale today to celebrate an important day! Go ATWT!

My irrational anger at the Bold and the Beautiful

At Soap Opera Network, someone printed a blind item from SOD about a youth oriented "revamp" coming to Bold and Beautiful. I have watched B&B from the beginning, and that just made me angry! This summarizes a few of the thoughts I put down about this. Can B&B be saved? I love the show, and I really hope it can...

======

Let me apologize in advance for this rant.

I share everyone's concerns. Is this going to be shaky-cam? Is this going to be filmlook? Is this going to be new 'edgy' sets with loud music? Is this going to be played by lots of pretty, vapid people with few skills...and little tie to history? (Hey, the vapid-and-pretty defines this show since 1987 ).

Clearly, this is not going to give us more Lesli Kay or Winsor Harmon on our screens.

ON THE OTHER HAND...I have been unable to watch for weeks. I simply can no longer watch grizzled, angry Ronn Moss. I loved Kelly Lang, but goodness is her schtick old. Jack Wagner looks old and tired. Flannery is being phased out, and her absence is felt. The main story now is about DEMENTIA using an actress we never saw before (and character who has not been a viable onscreen character since the 80s). This is after a long run of terminal abdominal cancer, drunken hit-and-runs, alcoholism, meltdowns of key characters, confronting one's elderly mother about one's abused childhood, rape, shooting, insanity, suicide, and terminal heart conditions. This is darker and more melodramatic and more eye-rolling than anything. The endless litany of 40- and 50-somethings playing characters with adolescent sensibilities, morality, and capability for commitment are.... Promising entertainers (Lesli Kay, Heather Thom, and Eileen Davidson) languish or are mis-used in high-concept stories that are reminiscent of 1930s/1940s women's films. That's fine--but you can't build a whole show unendingly on this dreck.

I sit here, in my 40s, and even _I_ feel this show is stagnant and over-populated with the older generation. The show has failed to bring along a viable younger generation in forever. There WAS promise with Sean Kanan and Adrienne Frantz...but shockingly this was squandered when the creative team got bored.

So, I _do_ feel the show needs reinvention and new characters/stories. On the other hand, every single "reinvention" at B&B has failed. There was the "diversity" experiment, where Paulo Bendetto and Lilly Melgar and George Alvarez were introduced. How long did that last? There was last summer's "Boldface Records" undending tripe. Appealing performers have been introduced throughout history (most recently, folks like Ben Hogetsyn and Mykel Shannon Jenkins), only to wither on the vine. Stellar infusions by the likes of Lesley Anne Down and Joseph Mascolo have been allowed to fade out with whimpers, not bangs.

This show has been as lost as any show on daytime. It has been held afloat only by its' lead-in and its international sales and, yes, its pedigree. But, as the lead-in and the international sales decline, and the pedigree grows older and colder (we miss you, Bill Sr.!), I find B&B has less and less to offer.

So, yes, re-invention is needed...more here than anywhere else in daytime. BUT...if they do not change their EP and they do not change their HW, and they do not listen to their experienced consultants (Jack Smith and Kay Alden have left NO imprint on this show; I find NO improvement due to the Y&R writers who were added)...then there is no mechanism to bring about change or improvement.

You'll think I'm nuts here...but if any show needed Wendy Riche and Claire Labine, this is it. SERIOUSLY. For B&B has lacked a soul, an identity, commitment to characters and stories, and a direction forever. There is a reason I DVR this show nightly but cannot bring myself to watch. It is too painful. There are brief and grand glorious soapy moments (Sally weeping over Darla's dying body; Storm's suicide and the resulting transplant), interspersed with unending sap played by largely unlikeable characters.

It is time for change. I embrace it. But I am afraid if a "youth-quake" is what is going to be offered. That misses the point. PLEASE give B&B a soul.

======

Now, I'm kind of hung up on the idea that I think Judith Chapman's Gloria Abbott should come to B&B and pick up the reins at Spectra? By all accounts, Gloria needs to be "rested" at Y&R, and B&B needs her camp fabulousness. With Eileen Davidson at B&B, Ash and Glo could revive their feud. Since Gloria's signature is perfume ("perfume on the Glo") and Ash designs fragrances for Forrester...it could be a whole new era in the Spectra-Forrester war. I REALLY REALLY REALLY think Gloria could front Spectra and make it great (in story) again. [Leslie Anne Down probably could too...but B&B seems to have no interest making her anything other than a hand-wringing mother].

Now, what about this revamp? I think it debuted, in part, on July 2, 2008 in the US. Until July 9, for US viewers, you can see the episode on Youtube. Click the episode link here (CBS will not allow the video to be embedded).

For critical moments, watch at:

0:01, 3:16, and 4:19 to get a sense of what people are talking about--exteriors and rocky fast cuts. That this coincides with Beemer's arrival is likely not an accident. This is actually a highly appropriate style change for an LA-set soap...I am definitely down with that.

You know what...if the writing is good, and the show is still rooted in its' history and core families, I can go with this. But, it will not give the show a "soul".

But I realized something today...if B&B wants to continue showing us (as it has since 1987) people with adolescent romantic behavior...the least they can do is feature adolescents behaving thus. That. already, is an improvement over the aged mess (and I'm a gerontologist!!) we have been getting.


======

Even though I want her to revive B&B, I really want Judith Chapman/Glo to stay on Y&R anyway. (Yup, I'm the only one who does :-) ). But I so miss Darlene Conley and Sally Spectra that I can't stand it. At least when their stories were stupid they were INTENTIONALLY stupid. Now, they're just embarrasingly stupid (dying Katie goes to the prom; dying Felicia in end stage bowel cancer that has metastacized to the liver gets a miraculous partial organ transplant and now looks healthier than anyone on the show).

I have this deep, deep loyalty to William J. Bell...I can't totally explain why. I so want this final baby of his to thrive for a long time. For me, the monstrosity is the creative direction of this show. I personally suspect that B&B is about to plummet from rank 2, and join all the rest at the bottom of the pile. There is nothing to sustain viewership right now.

======

Darlene Conley was the soul. B&B was kind of a cold fish when it debuted. Interestingly enough, I really don't think B&B caught fire initially, and succeeded only by being Y&R's follow-up. When Sally joined the show (initially for a short term role, but boy did it explode!), it turned the show on its' ear. Suddenly there was humor and camp. Suddenly there were haves and have nots. Suddenly there was this great ongoing battle. It was fun, and work EVEN BEFORE they brought Macy in for a Romeo and Juliet with Thorne.

Brad Bell's storyline commitment to the Spectras waned fairly quickly, but at least he left them on canvas. And Darlene, bless her heart, was such a force of nature that she was able to steal the show even when she was just quiet in a scene. Like Jeanne Cooper on Y&R, Darlene LOVED her audience and its' adoration, and she projected in back in every syllable and movement. She was the emotional hook for the show.

In those earlier days, Susan Flannery and Katherine Kelly Lang also rocked. Flannery was so cold, so hard...but when she does one of her verbal harrangues--pure reason, little emotion--you can't help but agree with her. She CLAIMS you with her total authenticity. I never really liked Stephanie, never really supported her actions...but couldn't wait to see her.

When Flannery and Conley went at it--all reason versus emotion--it was a perfect ying and yang.

Back in those days, young ingenue Brooke...so sexy, so sweet, so sincere, totally sold me. She often did horrendous things (keeping Ridge and Caroline apart, later bedding Eric), but she did it with such girlish sincerity. She was the opposite of Sally (not loud, not boisterous), but equally plausible as a girl carried by dreams and hopes.

One would think that, despite Conley's death, Flannery and Lang might be able to keep it going. But Flannery is so CLEARLY bored, it doesn't work very well anymore. And her character's relentless clinging to Eric undermines her as a supremely rational being, because her choices make so little sense. She has also been damaged by plot driven messes (like telling Katie she "loves" her, when we never saw that relationship develop on screen). And Lang, dear sweet Lang, is 100% implausible now. A 40-something woman is NOT a girl, and her choices cannot be justified as "clinging to hope and dreams". When a woman does that at her age, we start to see she is sick, deluded, rather like Amanda Wingfield in the Glass Menagerie. Such sickness can be fun to watch...but it cannot sustain the emotional core of a show.

Taylor and Felicia never worked as emotional centers for the show. Taylor used to be so crisp and *always right* (I say that in a good way), and she should have stayed that way. Tylo simply doesn't handle playing "breakdown" well, so now we have our strong and smart Taylor erased, and indelibly replaced with this weeping and shrieking mess. Not fun.

Lesli Kay stole my heart during her terminal illness story, but they should have let her character die. The "rescue" ruined Felicia in three ways: First, it introduced a supreme implausibility, rather like "Josh" at All My Children. Second, we didn't see her go on to make choices IN LIGHT of her death experience...so in the end the dying became irrelevant. Third, the character has been horribly neglected ever since...so we don't have anyone we "root" for. I still love Kay, but (due to the absence of writing for her) she has tended to become this snarky dame in the corner...there is no heart or intrinsic interest.

Suddenly, we have a show at 21 years of age with NO emotional center. There has been a desperate attempt to put Katie there...but the writing has been so schlocky and our history with Katie so brief, it cannot sustain interest.

I honestly believe that unless this show is willing to start over...to build some young generation members who command our emotions...it is dead. I cannot think of a SINGLE outstanding young cast member since Adrienne Frantz. There is not ONE since Amber that just drew us in emotionally. That represents at least a decade of failure.

It's population aging, stupid!

Since the population is aging, why are we so worried if the TV audience is aging with it? That is my current headscratcher after reading a New York Times article linked by the incredible Roger Newcomb at his blog today.

It started with the recent report that median age of TV viewers had gone up to 50. This is a huge problem, because advertisers are usually only interested in viewers aged 18-49 (and they'd really prefer 18-34 or 18-39).

Now, the oft-repeated reasons for this preference for younger viewers have to do with brand preferences. Even though older viewers might have more disposable income to actually spend on advertised products, the story goes that they are "set" in their desired brands and products. Thus, to the extent that advertising shapes lifetime buyer behavior, it is the young and malleable eyeballs one wants to attract.

I know a thing or two about aging research, but I am not familiar with the basis for this assumption. I am going to assume that this is more than an old chestnut...that current research backs this up. There may also be other reasons for the preference for younger targets than I am aware of.

In the NYT article linked by Roger, the demographics of the daypart are reviewed. Among the key findings:

The NBC soap opera “Days of our Lives” has the youngest average audience (49) and the CBS game show “The Price is Right” has the oldest average audience (64).

The implication, of course, is that TV is becoming an old-person's medium. The younger viewers must be FLOCKING to other new media....internet and cell phones and videogames (oh my!). TV is not replacing its' audience. All is lost.

For me, who is often a Chicken Little, I think the story is a lot more complex and interesting and not necessarily cause for alarm. I think we can draw at least three conclusions:

1. The TV audience should be getting older, because the population is getting older! It may not just mean that younger viewers are abandoning television. Since the turn of the 20th century, and certainly since the post-WW2 era, we have had a phenomenon in the western world of population aging. Here are a couple of key quotes.

From wikipedia:

Population ageing is constituted by a shift in the distribution of a country's population towards greater ages. Thus an increase in the population's mean or median age, a decline in the fraction of the population composed of children, or a rise in the fraction of the population that is elderly are all aspects of population ageing.

Population ageing is a highly generalized process. It is most advanced in the most highly developed countries. Among the countries currently classified by the United Nations as more developed (with a population of 1.2 billion in 2005), the median age of the population rose from 29.0 in 1950 to 37.3 in 2000, and is forecast to rise to 45.5 by 2050.

Says the US Administration on Aging:

The older population--persons 65 years or older--numbered 37.9 million in 2007 (the latest year for which data is available). They represented 12.6% of the U.S. population, more than one in every eight Americans. By 2030, the number of older people is expected to increase by 88.6% over the 2007 figure to 71.5 million older persons (20% of the total population)

Indeed, the now 8-year old US 2000 decennial census said:

The median age in America reached its highest point ever at 35.3 years, up from 32.9 years in 1990, according to recently released data from Census 2000. By "median age," the Census Bureau means that half of the American people are now older and half younger than 35.3 years.

Now, admittedly, the average TV viewer is 15 years older than the average citizen. But maybe that's just because we've successfully trained our kids, in their first fifteen years of life, to play outside and ignore the boob tube? (Yeah, right!) :-). But the central fact remains, as the population ages, so too should the tv audience.

2. Much more interesting than the mean and the median is the standard deviation! What is the RANGE of ages watching different programs? This report doesn't tell us, but that seems essential for judging whether shows/dayparts/networks attract niche audiences or broad audiences. Smart advertisers, it seems to me, will want to target different messages for different audiences.

3. In knowledge is power, if you're willing to change. Let's now turn away from discounting the data. Let's accept that younger viewers are turning away from traditional television.

Younger viewers are not, however, abandoning entertainment. They are just getting it in different ways (computer, personal audio/video devices, video games, etc.). Because content for these devices can often be cleverly yoked to advertising (forced/no-fast-forward commercials, surrounding banners, ads with links), this is actually highly desirable. You can FORCE ad viewing. You can do so in a relatively uncluttered environment (not in a spate of 16 minutes of commercials every hour). You can target the ads, sometimes, to the viewers cookies or preset preferences. And you can achieve a 100% count of viewership (not like the oft-derided Neilsen ratings system).

Hallelujah. If I were an advertiser or a content programmer, I'd be investing in interactive media so heavily your head would spin. And I would be actively and aggressively trying to lure my traditional TV viewers to the new media, while doing everything I could (viral marketing, etc.) to lure new eyeballs.

With regard to the soaps, only CBS (ironically, the network with the oldest viewers) seems to be fully on this bandwagon. NBC puts Days on I-tunes, and ABC...well their strategy is still 90% TV. Big mistake...

===

Now, the power of the new media is beyond exciting. Take this simple comparison.

Last week, according to Toups at Soap Opera Network, the Number One soap averaged 4,851,000 viewers and the bottom-ranked soap averaged 2,288,000 viewers.

Now, in about the same period, the soap-star laden Imaginary Bitches got 1.5 Million views. So, for a fraction of the cost, promotion, etc., a good proportion of the TV audience could be had on the internet. Imagine what would happen with a little effort!

This is the future, and lovers of soaps need to encourage the networks to continue to pursue this frontier.