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.

Jess Walton "hysteria"? I think not!

I adore Sara Bibel's blog. She has this no-bullshit way of cutting through the melodrama (a task I fail at) and sort of offering an incisive analysis. She is usually spot-on, because she blends industry knowledge, phenomenological experience from the Y&R creative team, and a history as a ratings analyst. That ivy-league education doesn't hurt either.

But Sara espoused something about the recent Jess Walton contract negotiations that I disagree with. (For those not following every twist, Y&R issued a recasting call for "Jill", ostensibly because Walton was 'under the weather'. Sources indicated, however, that it was really part of a tense negotiation between Walton and Sony/Bell/Y&R in which TPTB sought to lower Walton's episode guarantee and/or rate. The recast notice was publicized by Soap Opera Digest last Friday, but by late Monday, initial word came that Walton had re-signed. In other words, one side or both blinked).

Sara said this:

Jess Walton is leaving The Young & The Restless because she’s sick! No, it’s because the show is going to cut her appearances to once a month and her salary to minimum wage! Deidre Hall is going to take over the role. No, Anna Stuart. Actually, Jessica Lange and Goldie Hawn are going to dye their hair and split the role in a casting coup. Even though the show can’t afford Walton. Wait, Walton just signed a new deal. Nevermind.

As for l’affaire de Walton, it seems like it was a standard contract negotiation that unfortunately played out in the press. Unfortunately, everyone in daytime is being asked to take pay cuts these days. Hell, everyone in America is. Nobody likes them. Rest assured, your favorite soap star won’t be showing up at your local food bank anytime soon. They’re still making six figures, just less than they were before. Soaps often take the step of putting out casting calls for recasts when actors balk. It isn’t a friendly tactic. Sometimes it backfires (see Byrne, Martha). But, it often makes people sign on the dotted line. That’s what happened here. The winner, in this case, in the audience who gets to keep watching Walton in the meatiest storyline she has had in years.

Hmmm. Internet over-reaction? Excessive support for an actress during 'customary' negotiations? After all, she won't go hungry (says the previously self-titled 'unemployed' writer).

My view on this is completely different. I think that "l'affaire Walton" demonstrates the new engaged, activist audience, and there are many lessons in the furious weekend of Walton scribblings. At Soap Opera Network, half the posters changed their avatars to Walton images for the weekend!

For the record, the word "hysteria" I use below is the connotation I took from Bibel's piece (and other writers and posters from the same period), and is NOT a quote.

1. Fans had a right to mistrust. A frequent term was the "ABC-Dification of Y&R"...used to refer to the fact that veterans on ABC have been set to recurring or low guarantees...and then become non-viable. This has happened trans-genre.
2. It was compounded by the fact that the LUMINOUS, REMARKABLE, BEST-WORK-OF-HER-CAREER Walton was finally back on the front burner after five years of -- ahem -- misguided storytelling. Now, finally, when Michael Jordan is back and scoring, you're gonna even THREATEN to cut him from the team? This part of the fan response was simply an expression of love -- not hysteria.
3. Y&R itself has a relatively recent history of "botching" (in the fan mind) many of these tense negotiations. While opinions are mixed, the loss of Heather Tom and Victoria Rowell is attributed by many to an unproductively unflinching TPTB. Injudicious cast cutting, in the eyes of some, cost us Jerry Douglas and Don Diamont. Ridiculous inflexibility led to long hiatuses for fan faves like Melody Thomas Scott (who reportedly cleared out her dressing room), Eric Braeden, Joshua Morrow, and Sharon Case. Nobody wanted that for "Jill", the sole "legacy character" who has been there from the beginning.
4. It is true that the news about the negotiations was remarkably 'real time'. Just a few years ago, I'd get my news about 'tense negotiations' from Soap Opera Digest, and by the time I read it, a new deal had already been made. Therefore, it is quite a sign of journalistic evolution that the news now was immediate. Was the fan response "hysteria". In my opinion, the new era of real-time news means that the fans were co-participants in the negotiation! Like a papal nomination, we were thronging outside the Vatican, looking for the color of the smoke.
5. "Tense" negotiations, eh? But they got resolved over a weekend! During that period, many people -- informed by the real time news -- sent notes of protest and support to CBS, Bell, Sony and Walton. One source (another fallacious internet rumor? maybe?) indicates to me that these notes DID reach TPTB, and that some executives WERE surprised at the level of pro-Walton support.

Let's pretend the last point is true? Maybe the fan voices ("hysteria"), in some small way, shifted the valence of the negotiations. Maybe the fan voices made it just a little harder for TPTB to maintain the claim to Walton of "you can be easily replaced". Maybe, just maybe, "hysterical" fans helped prevent the kind of painful, damaging, protracted negotations (often with "bad" outcomes from a fan perspective) that happened before?

Who knows. Even if the fan voices were irrelevant, one cannot underestimate the powerful well-being benefits of a little self-efficacy and locus of control. The illusion of playing a small role in affecting an outcome is -- itself -- a wonderful thing. If that weren't true, why else would many of us go out and vote in elections?

In the end, though, I love happy endings! Glad you're sticking around, Jess!

PS: Ms Walton, I hope you have given up smoking! (A lot of us were scared by that 'under the weather' comment)

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.

Coming Soon

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

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

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

2. The gathering storm over Guiding Light.

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

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

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

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

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

Now, if only Snark would weigh in again!

Soapy's Tribute to Don Diamont

I don't usually just link to other posts here, but Soaphunks.net has assembled a really nice tribute to Don Diamont. If you visit, you'll see that the site's owner talks about the ways in which Diamont actually played a formative role in his life. More importantly, there is lots of classic Don to appreciate. Please visit!

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!