Genoa City Lost

Readers of daytimeconfidential can discern the truth of Jamey Giddens' recent critique of Y&R. The state of the show is appalling...but it is also curious. All the elements -- from production to writing to acting -- are THERE...so why is the show so bad?

In short, the problem is the absence of heart...of emotion, nostalgia, or sincere feeling. Even remarkable actors who have bled on the stage for us in the past are clearly not connecting to the rushed, plotty show they're putting on.

My credentials: I have watched Y&R since 1973 (I was a wee 8 year old, but mom put it on). Y&R is so ingrained in the narrative of my life that I view it not from a "technical" perspective, but as someone who knows intuitively when the show is true to its nature. Or when -- as now -- it is not.

Right now, we have a canvas filled with original or veteran faces (Kay, Victor, Jack, Paul, Phyllis, Nick, Sharon, Ashley, Kevin) and characters we saw born on this show (Billy, Victoria, Chloe, Ronan)...but it all feels so flat. Characters are doing things they'd NEVER do (Kay annulling her son's marriage out of spite, Victor throwing a woman out of an ambulance and taking a son away from his father).

This happened once before. After a promising start, Lynn Latham's second year got seriously off the rails, as Nikki (Nikki!) ran for Senate and the entire town clustered around some rural village that was being turned into a resort (Clear Springs). Little made sense. Ratings began to decline precipitously during this period, and continued to do so well into Maria Bell's "rescue regime".

It is curious that Maria Bell's Y&R feels so off right now. We know she's capable of heart. Her nadir-story was "the death of Kay". Kay's funeral and eventual reunion were the ultimate of "heart", as a touching romance bloomed with Murphy, old friends and rivals reunited at Kay's funeral, and Marge got a touching "ghostly farewell" to the tune of Perry Como's "Papa Loves Mambo". Greatness!

But then the Silver Chipmunk happened. It is fair to say that, since then, Y&R has progressively devolved back into a crime riddled (Richard Hightower! Skye's multiple deaths! Patty's reign of terror! Corporate shenanigans!, Diane's murder! Baby stealing! Over-the-top Australian mobsters!) mess. Not only do these stories not elicit feeling or emotion...emotion is decisively left out. Examples:

Diane -- a character with a thirty year tie to Jack -- gets nary a tear (except, maybe, from the terrific Christian Leblanc's Michael). Adam is betrayed by Sharon, and embarks on a spree of revenge (thank heavens Michael Muhney -- and his eyes!! -- work against the malevolence of the tale). Three touching couples are made -- well -- not touching.

- Billy and Victoria: The story here would have been to see them stay together -- fight together -- against obstacles. Instead, they folded as soon as the first marital assault hit them. Where's the rooting value in that?
- Nick and Phyllis: Apparently they're sex buddies again. Okay. The actors still FIRE UP the room in every scene when they're together. So why is there no emotion or tenderness or motivation in their scenes?
- Lily and Daniel: (Controversial here--I know Cane/Lily have major fans). There's something beautifully touching in a pair that damaged their union through youthful mistakes rediscovering each other from a grown up perspective. Daniel feels he doesn't want to be a father (shadows of his own damaged childhood and paternity/maternity issues??)...but could Lily make him feel secure in his nurturing skills, so that he would be a good stepdad to her kids...and even dad to his own Lucy?

There WERE promising emotional stories.

The Lear-esque "Fall of the House of Newman" was especially good...and it really made the most out of Marcy Rylan/Eric Braeden's terrific chemistry. The family was fractured. This promised YEARS of rivalry and reconciliation. Instead...it is over. Forgotten. Done. Huh?

Phyllis -- inexplicably -- tried to pull baby Lucy from the secure loving parents who were raising her. (I guess I get it...it has to do with making up for her own previous shortcomings as a mom). Everyone picked sides. It was an agonizing story. Then...Phyllis got Lucy, was ostracized for week, then Nick and Michael seemed to mostly forgive her...and it's over. Forgotten. Done. Huh?

The Y&R canvas is OVER-STUFFED. The show seems to have little motivation to write for Tricia Cast/Doug Davidson, Kristoff St. John ... Yet the show also refuses to decisively clean house, and to commit to protracted story arcs we can invest in.

These days, I find little compelling material to draw me to the show. There are a few very capable actors (Muhney, Leblanc, Rylan, Thomas-Scott, E. Davidson) who are still finding emotion in every scene they do. There are a few others who rise to the occasion when they can connect with the material (Bergman, Braeden, Heinle, D. Davidson, Stafford). Still others seem utterly emotionally disconnected from this plotty show...even actors who have given us AMAZING performances in the past.

I still check in every day, but more and more reluctantly. My thoughts stray to cable (Breaking Bad, Torchwood, True Blood, Big C, Weeds). B&B (that's another blog post) --always my also-ran soap--has become my first soap of choice!. I guess I'm waiting for Genoa City to welcome me back to a big, nostalgic, sloppy, feel-good-or-feel-bad-BUT-FEEL-SOMETHING homecoming.

Why I'm dismayed by Y&R Diane Jenkings Murder Mystery (Killer "revealed")

This adapted from a twitter-stream in which I ranted this morning. Surely I'm not the only one who feels this way. Ugh...

Structurally, I actually LIKE the murder mystery, and if I'm reading it right (see the section at bottom for my guess about the killer), it's one of the best-constructed for Y&R in yrs.

What I don't like about the murder mystery is the underlying emotional mistruths and plottiness it forces us to endure. To wit:

(1) We KNOW (subjectively) that none of the nine prime suspects is a killer......even Adam, we KNOW--because Muhney's eyes tell us he's not. (He did NOT kill Hightower).

(2) Too many crime stories (Hightower, Patty, mob, murder) have infected Y&R since the latter days of Lynn Latham. What about emotion, love and family drama in small Wisconsin town? That Y&R seems to be dead, eh? (Interesting that GH, AMC, DOOL all seem to be RETURNING to the formula of emotional family-based drama...and B&B is excelling in that category these days...with nary a murder in sight).

(3) Murder derails the show in a single umbrella story. So many interesting tales (Nikki's recovery, Villy, Daniel/Lily rediscovering each other, Tucker's son) are ignored.

(4) The story is ultimately pure plot, minimal character. There are a few actors on this show who can still evoke emotion with their faces and body language (Muhney, Leblanc, Ryland, Braeden [when he cares/is invested], and ... shockingly, Heinle). Strangely, Peter Bergman has been really emotionally disconnected from his scenes for a long while, and all that reads now mostly is coldness. But while this crew is front-and-center in the plot, most of them aren't finding the emotional truth of it at all. That relates to my next point.

(5) Y&R is totally ignoring the emotional HEART of this story. Diane has been on canvas since 1982 and some DID care for her. Only Michael Baldwin, briefly, got to play the emotion. I suspect that owes itself 80% to Leblanc's strengths as an actor--his constrained emotions and tear-brimmed eyes told the story of his outrage.

If I had my way, Y&R would do a two-year moratorium on death and crime, and see what else they could come up with.



Also, it bears noting that while many of us felt Maura West was an odd casting choice for Diane, and the character was scripted from jump (during West's watch) as a lost woman with no sense of her self-worth, no real identity, just money-grubbing man whore, she still thrived in it. West reinvented Diane as utterly broken, and she pulled it off. It is the writers' fault that Diane's successful past as a fashion maven, model, and architect were all fully ignored. (Empowered Diane couldn't have filled the show's obviously much-desired victim niche). Nevertheless, during her brief year on the show, West was a STAR. She captivated attention even in the most throwaway scenes.

My predictions about the killer are below, in white font. I'm pretty sure I'm right. Highlight the text with your cursor to reveal:

I think the killer is Patty. As such, it's actually a brilliant move because it makes sense based on THIRTY YEARS of history.

Rationale:

Motive: Patty's life derailed, basically, when she married philandering Jack Abbott. The NIGHT before his wedding to Patty, Jack slept with Diane...and the affair continued after the marriage (leading to Patty's miscarriage). The show cleverly reminded us of this rivalry in a one-off episode when Haiduk's Patty confronted Susan Walters' Diane during a brief visit.

Opportunity: Patty is missing. No one knows where she is. We have a sense that she may be "around", when Adam talked on the phone to "someone" last week, telling him/her to stay away and that he was sending him/her enough money.

Character: Patty's a killer. Kitty-Kitty, Zapato, endangering Summer with peanut butter. It also seems likely -- although the show introduced ambiguity here -- that Patty killed Richard Hightower. (Adam reminded her that she did it...but we weren't clear if he'd really uncovered the memory, or if he'd implanted it). Let's not forget that as early is the early-80s, Patty went into a fugue state and shot Jack (for revealing, to Jill, he never loved Patty). Remember that Patty shot Jack MULTIPLE times? Just like Diane got bashed in the head MULTIPLE times. Girl's got anger issues.

Rumor: Someone told me, after I guessed this, that Haiduk had been seen on the Y&R set for a few episodes to "wrap up" her character. Plot construction: Suddenly, the criminally ignored Doug Davidson resurfaces. He's sudden the lead local detective (special investigator) on the Diane Jenkins murder. (Negative points to Y&R for ignoring how many years Paul and Diane had intertwined lives, from when she was married to his partner/best friend Andy. Davidson should have been allowed to grieve for what Diane once was). Anyway, why put Paul on the case (rather than, say, Coco from FAME??). So he can react with trademark shock and heartbreak when he realizes HIS SISTER IS THE KILLER.

I must confess, it is this last part of it...rooting this murder in 30 years of history and positioning Davidson to play the emotional beats of it...that makes me hate this story less.

Doppelgangers: Without comment

On Y&R, we recently saw Daniel Goddard's "Cane" gunned down. He died in one of the most gruesome daytime deaths in a long time...and in his wife's arms. Lest there be any doubt, we saw his cold cold body on a morgue slab for some time, and we've seen (I think) his ghost. In the scope of soap deaths, Cane is dead-dead. No? (Hard to tell. After B&B had an open-casket funeral for Taylor Hayes...who also died on screen...we later learned her body had been replaced by a wax doll, and that she'd been saved by her sheikh benefactor, Prince Omar).



Well, yesterday we saw this smirking guy, looking at Lily from an elevator. It can't be Cane, as Cane would have stared at her with a look of love or longing or pain...or he would have run to be with her. We're supposed to think it's Lily's delusion/hallucination, but I'm inclined to believe (as are many others), that this is a double hired by Cane's daddy (the sublime Tristan Rogers as "Colin") to create the impression of Lily's incompetence. If he can get Lily ruled an unfit mother, then as the blood relative of her twins, he may be able to abscond somehow with her twins.

Some folks on Twitter (e.g., @kate4lane) have taken to calling this new guy "Bane". Twitter user @unlimitedjason further says this stands for "Bullshit Cane". Sigh and double sigh. While I'm thrilled to see Mr. Goddard have a chance to essay a darker character, does Y&R need another doppelganger? Twitter user @jdracoules suggests that Y&R may now be in the running with Dark Shadows for the biggest number of dual roles in daytime. The wordle at the top of this page is presented without further comment.

Thanks also to Twitter users @_PhilParis, @Scott_Novick, @Robansuefarm, @berry198 for making sure my list of doppelgangers was complete.

Y&R: "Rating" the headwriters

[Click on the link below to see the full version, if it is trucated]

ETA. SON User Paul Raven was able to give me 1999 ratings, which fleshes out data for Kay Alden. The pattern of data was identical to what I had published in an earlier draft, but it gives me more confidence in the Alden results.



Last week at Daytime Confidential, writer Jamey Giddens wrote an eloquent review of Tom Casiello's first breakdown at Y&R. It was a terrific review, and I agree with almost all of it.

But a funny thing happened in the comment thread. Jamey and a user named Monamis got into a debate about the relative impact of Lynn Latham on the ratings. Monamis points out things really went south with current headwriter (HW) Maria Arena Bell took over, but Jamey Giddens argues that Latham lost a million viewers.

What is the truth? Well, it sounds like a data analysis, and that's my thing.

Here is what I did. I wanted to go back to the start of Kay Alden's regime as solo Headwriter, but Toups' ratings archive at Soap Opera Network only gives me weekly ratings as far back as 2000. Okay, I'd start there.

Because different tenures lasted different periods of time, I thought I should post average weekly changes. These represent the slope coefficients that result when the household (HH) ratings are regressed on week. They represent the single best way to express ratings change in a common metric, despite the varying writing tenures on the show.

The figure at the top illustrates the data graphically. You can see that, as always, there was a lot of week to week variability. So, I am just extracting the linear trends from these data.

I divided the tenures this way:

Alden = Alden solo, before the arrival of Jack Smith
Smith = any period after Smith returned to the show, but before Latham joined
Latham = any period after she was formally named HW, even while Alden and Smith were still there
ArenaBell&Griffith = the disastrous (for ratings) period that began with the WGA writer's strike of 2007, and continued until Griffith's ouster in early 2008
ArenaBell = the post-Griffith period, in which she led a team that included Hogan Sheffer, Scott Hamner, and mahy others.

I further broke Latham's tenure into two pieces. 2006 was when she still had the legacy team (Alden, Smith, Ed Scott and many others) for most of it, and 2007, when she essentially had absolute control over her team without any "legacy" interference.

The table looks like this:

HW regime	Average weekly HH ratings change
Kay Alden	-0.010
Jack Smith with Kay Alden	-0.004
Lynn Latham (overall)	-0.003
Lynn Latham (2006 with legacy team)	+0.001
Lynn Latham (2007 without legacy team)	-0.006
Arena Bell/Griffth	-0.028
Arena Bell	+0.004

What do these numbers show?

It means the worst regime for the show was that Arena Bell/Griffth collaboration, that coincided with the WGA writer's strike and the sudde dismissal of Lynn Latham. Story-wise, the rushed introduction of Sabrina and her whirlwind romance with Victor seems to caused so much disgust that viewers tuned out in droves.

Alden's solo regime was next in problematic ratings. On average, she lost about 0.5 HH ratings points a year, which is a lot.

What that means is that the most disastrous period in the Toups/SON ratings archive is the several month period in which Arena Bell was writing with Josh Griffith. During this period, which encompassed the writer's strike and brief period thereafter, there were non-trivial declines on a week-by-week basis. "Bleeding". Many internet bloggers/message boarders blame this on the "damaged ground" that these writers inherited from Latham, but the descent was so precipitous, I have to believe that the introduction the much-younger Sabrina and Victor's whirlwind romance with her provoked a "disgust" response that led to massive tuneout.

More impressive is that in the time since Griffith left, Arena has actually stemmed the bleeding, and she is the only HW since Bill Bell to show ratings GROWTH.Now the growth is actually fairly anemic (.004 HH ratings points per week, on average), but in this climate, any growth is breath-taking.

Ratings-wise, the second-most difficult period in the post-Bell era was Kay Alden's solo regime, at least in the period beginning with 2000. Every ten weeks, on average, the show could be expected to lose 0.1 ratings points, or about 0.5 ratings points a year.

It seems that Alden's collaboration with Smith stemmed the tide...during this period, a much slower rate of decline set in.

And here is where it gets interesting. Latham was brough into shake things up. But, overall, her weekly rate of ratings decline (-.003) was only trivially different from the Smith & Alden era. She was not any more destructive to the ratings than her predecessors, but she was also not helpful. The truth, of course, is that Latham's era can be broken into "early Latham" and "late Latham", with these distinguished by when she had Alden/Smith/Scott around and when she didn't. If you compare these periods (roughly delimited by 2006 versus 2007), you find this:

In 2006, Latham and the legacy team achieved a weekly ratings change, on average of +.001...or slight gain. But in 2007, when Latham was solo (i.e., no legacy team) her ratings changed, on average, to a weekly decline of -.006!

Thus, Latham-solo was almost as negative as Alden solo.

Jack Smith's addition did stem the flow, and the rate of decline was much slower...but continuous. Interestingly, overall, Latham's weekly rate of decline was almost identical to Smith's, even though she was brought in to "fix things up". Ironically, a closer examination shows that when she worked with Alden/Smith and other legacy team members, she was actually experiencing slight ratings gain. But, once she let go of the team, her solo rate of decline was actually almost twice as bad as that experienced by Jack Smith.

The optimistic closer, of course, is Maria Arena Bell's current trend, which is actually positive. There has been a slow but steady very slight ratings gain. A little hope for the future....

Wrong! But I still love you....

Well, my heart and my brain are telling me different things.

Maria, I think by now you know I love you. I've suggested that you are saving daytime, merely by following Marland's rules. Heck, I have always loved your show...even when it went through a shaky period. I still love your show, and I'll be tuned in every blessed day.

But why oh why did they have to find Brad's body?

Of all the characters on daytime, Brad's situation was perfectly set up to be the body that was never found. He slipped under the ice. It could have taken till Spring to be able to drag the lake...and by then what might have remained of the corpse? And Brad, nee George Kaplan, knows a thing or two about "dying" and coming back in a new persona.

See, I understand why you might have killed off Brad, even if I'm not totally happy about the decision.

1. He was on the backburner all of last year, so it is clear you didn't really have any story in mind for him
2. By some accounts, the character was destroyed by the -- ahem -- previous administration, when he was given a ridiculous on-the-run-from Nazis storyline
3. Moreover, the character compromised the integrity of much of the Y&R characters, because they were all accessories to crimes he committeed: Brad killed two men (one with his thighs), but nobody brought him to justice (even to report it as self-defense). Thus, the whole canvas was tainted.
4. Daytime is in a financial rut, so even your show probably has to lose some expensive veterans. Arguably, on Y&R, Don Diamont and Doug Davidson (sob) are currently the two most expendable veterans.
5. Killing Brad spins off a bunch of wonderful story. Sharon's guilt. Noah's Saving Private Ryan-style "Earn This" maturation. Deepening of Phyllis' guilt (she sent him to his death, in some ways). Colleen's turn to the dark side (will she disrupt Victoria and JT's marriage in the process?). Abby's resentment toward her bio-dad (Victor was awful to Brad) and of Eden...the bad girl who set some of this in motion by planning an illicit skating trip. Ashley's guilt for being unkind to Brad in his final days. So, lots of stories can (and, knowing you, WILL) spin off from this.
6. I'll bet you get sick of people asking when Victoria Rowell is coming back. After all, they never found the body. So, I'll bet that you decided to show the body, so that everyone knew Brad was really, truly dead.

Even as I understand all this, and even as I put handsome Diamont out of my mind for a moment, you so diabolically made Brad more interesting than ever these last few weeks. Fearing the loss of his daughter Abby to Victor. Thwarted desire for Sharon. Hot hate-chemistry with Phyllis. At loose ends in business. So much to develop here. The character of Brad was ripe for remaking under your pen, Maria.

So, I am sad that you decided to make this so final. Unlike your brother-in-law's soap, I can't even count on the possibility of a device like "That wasn't Brad...that was a wax doll substituted by an Arabian prince".

I shall miss Brad and Diamont. I hope that he will show up soon in a new venue. I congratulate you in spinning another fine tale. But I'm really sorry that you chose to make it final. But I'll keep watching every riveting chapter of your story. Because you and your team are that good. I have put my trust in your storytelling abilities. There is no denying, if you're gonna kill off a veteran, this is the way to do it!

Giving this finality to Brad was wrong. At least, that's what my heart says. But I still love you, Y&R. See you tomorrow!

The Template for Saving Daytime, Part 2

In my last post, I suggested that Marland's Rules, plus a few others, were essentially being used by Maria Arena Bell to "save" the Young and The Restless. The show had become mired in sensationalistic plots, changing characters (e.g., Nikki now a senatorial candidate???), and a general disorganization that did not bode well for the future. I suggested that Maria Arena Bell and her team have "saved" the show creatively.

But "saving" a show creatively IS NOT equivalent to saving it financially. The primetime landscape is littered with shows that were very good--often critically successful--that didn't last more than a few episodes.

In the world of commercial TV, the only way a show can survive is to attract enough (of the right kind of) eyeballs to make it appealing to advertisers to pay the freight. With ever shrinking numbers of viewers, the traditional broadcast advertiser-supported model is getting trickier and tricker to uphold.

In his remarkable interview with Maria Arena Bell and Paul Rauch, from which I quoted heavily in my last post, Nelson Branco also revealed that this leader has keen insights into the evolution of the business model. I believe she is on the right track regarding how to save daytime financially too. Now...if only someone would listen!

What the rest of this show suggests is that the Bell team has figured out a way to maximize viewership using a mix of quality and sumptuousness, DVR loyalty, cable and internet distribution, and international distribution. In other countries, viewership has been further maximized by moving to late afternoon/early evening time slots (Canada, eh!).

It is up to the media outlets and the advertisers to figure out how to monetize that. Y&R is delivering the eyeballs. By my count, the number is close to 8-10 million daily viewers in the US, and substantially more in international distribution. (CBS claims 5.6 million domestically and about another 4.5 million globally, but I think these are underestimates only count live TV broadcast viewers). Now, it is time for those in charge of making money to capitalize on those well delivered eyeballs.

Here is what I mean:

1. Maintain a unified creative vision and historical integrity

Translation: You have to want to watch the show!

Arena Bells says:

We have a very respectful relationship with the network. But this is my show and my vision.

This is standard for primetime. A showrunner is selected, and the show rises and falls with the showrunner's vision. Of course there is (always, endemically) corporate interference, but there is some respect for the "auteur". Daytime has really let that go in the last two decades.

If the show isn't watchable...if it doesn't produce an enjoyable and coherent experience...people won't tune in. This is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the survival of a soap.

One of the reasons Y&R still 'works' just happened in my home. My parents visited. They haven't watched the show regularly since the late 1980s. But, when I clicked it on, there was Katherine and Jill and Nikki and Victor and Paul and Jack and Ashley and Neil and Brad... Moreover, to the extent that those characters were seen, they all still acted like they used to. Victor was still controlling, and still in his love-hate dance with Nikki. Jack was still trying to bring down the moustache.

Because Y&R offers a consistent feeling of "home" to its loyal viewers, they keep returning. Obviously in ever-shrinking numbers (see below...there are reasons for that)...but more of them keep returning than for any other show.

(I should add that Y&R also manages to remain visually pleasurable to watch. Sumptuous sets and lighting, in crisp widescreen high definition. Y&R has been the trademark 'beautiful' soap from the beginning. It is easier for viewers to keep tuning into something that is a sensual treat, with stirring music, and a wide array of captivating sets...than to watch something that just looks cheap).

But what about the future?

2. Consider changing the timeslots

I have previously written that, in the rest of the world, soaps have mostly left the daytime. In those countries where they are enormously successful, late afternoon/early evening/even primetime berths assure sufficient numbers.

To this, Maria Arena Bell says, in her Branco interview,

All I can tell you is that there is talk about a lot of possibilities. We’ll have to see. As you know, there are constant changes in programming. Look at Jay Leno — he is filling the 10 p.m. slot five days a week! So, who knows?

In my view, the experiment to do is to let Y&R premiere each new episode weeknights at 8 pm (Eastern Time), and then rebroadcast the next day (on CBS) at 12:30 pm (Eastern Time), or the equivalent Central/Mountain/Pacific times. The cost savings for CBS would be enormous...that is five hours of primetime they wouldn't have to program. There would be only relatively small incremental licensing costs to Bell. If CBS follows the "Leno" model, I'd urge them to try it with Y&R. (This would likely mean cancelling the Soapnet deal).

3. On TV: Build it, they will come, and then show the advertisers

Following on what Sara Bibel said, Maria Bell notes in her Branco interview:

If you take into account that a third more viewers are watching our show since that’s the statistic — if you factor in DVR+7 — then the soaps have not taken the dip media analysts have claimed. There are still a lot of eyes on this show. Yesterday, we celebrated 20 years as the No. 1 soap opera in America — along with being No. 1 in all the demos by the widest margin we’ve ever had. Yes, I agree — we need the numbers from viewers who catch us on their computer, DVR, and SOAPnet. Even without those numbers, we’re second only to Oprah in daytime. That’s a lot of eyes! We’re certainly more viable than people give us credit for.

Think about that! It is true. Y&R is usually the #2 show in daytime...overall and with the "desirable" demographic.

Moreover, it gains a large number with those DVR views. I confess I am one of them.

This is a huge audience. The problem is not the show's...they are still delivering the eyeballs.

The flaw is the networks and the advertisers, who have failed to find better ways to capture these fast-forwarding eyeballs. The lack of creativity is on the part of the advertisers and the broadcasters.

Why are none of the successful internet strategies being used on TV? Banner ads? DVR codes that prohibit fast-forwarding (with the quid-pro-quo of fewer and more memorable ads)? Ads that flash a single "slide like" message on screen...so you can't miss the message even if you fast forward?

Product placement is also a clever approach, but it has really been done badly so far.

The next few points were not stated by Arena Bell, but are consistent (I believe) with her vision.

4. On the Internet: Build it, they will come, and then show the advertisers

I have mentioned before how broadly Y&R is streaming these days: Fancast.com, msn.com, cbs.com, youtube.com, yr.globaltv.com.

Every one of these is a countable hit, often with a cookie-trackable user, and with the ability to track minute-by-minute tuneouts, fast-forwards, reversals, quits. CBS.com even recently added a social networking/chat component (dish while you watch). Honestly, it is a data analyst's wet dream. Think of all the rich qualitative data you could get from the chat transcripts!

Interestingly this is all being done with virtually no promotion. My fear is that they don't want to inflame the affiliates.

Technologically, they have already figured out that delivering a smaller number of ads makes the audience happy, and increases the memorability of the ads. The presentations sometimes allow surrounding screens and banners to keep the ad ALWAYS PRESENT during the show. You cannot skip or fast forward the ads...but few fans get upset because the promotions are few in number.

Let us also add that if we could just DUMP the expensive infrastructure of affiliates and broadcast (too many middlemen), it would cost a lot less to deliver these shows over the internet. No FCC licensing.

The infrastructure is there. It is time to stop living in fear of the old media, and to sell-sell-sell the new!

There are clear indications of success in this sphere. In Canada, Y&R was recently listed among the top internet search terms. At CBS.com, Y&R consistently appears (solely among daytime soaps) as among the "most popular" streaming shows.

I'd add "move to cable" as an option...but...err...Soapnet hasn't exactly embraced soaps these days. I will note, though, that by airing Y&R in "early prime", that show is the number-one rated show for the network. Soapnet may not want soaps anymore...but surely some cable outfit wouldn't mind?

5. Cultivate and maintain an international base

The Bell shows are clear international winners. B&B is the big daddy here, but Y&R does pretty well too. Per the Young and the Restless 35th anniversary fact sheet,

The Young and the Restless international markets include Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, the Middle East, New Zealand, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey and the U.K.

The Young and the Restless is currently distributed in nearly 30 foreign countries on five continents through Sony Pictures Television International. The episodes currently aired abroad are not concurrent with the episodes airing in the U.S. and Canada.

The Young and the Restless is the top-rated daytime drama (M-F) in France.

These are extra sources of revenue. Along with (hopefully) growing revenues from cable and internet streaming and clever ways of monetizing DVR views, this international base buttresses a show against declines in the homeland.

I also think that the historical consistency and lush beauty of the show helps in international distribution. Having lived overseas, one of the things that international viewers love about American serials is their conspicuous consumption. Big cars, big houses, (at one time) big shoulders. Y&R is one of the few soaps that still embraces this quintessential component of the American serial.

Personally, I love verite too. I think there is room for that. But the traditional base of the international appeal of US shows is "lifestyles of the rich and famous". Y&R offers 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.