There used to be a time when I didn’t worry so much about how I watch a television show or how ratings were counted. That was the job of television executives and the Nielsen ratings system. Lately though I have been watching the ratings race for daytime television like a crazed Nascar fan hoping my car will pull into the lead. It’s a bumpy race.
Daytime TV just isn’t watched the same way that it used to be. Actually TV in general isn’t watched the same way that it used to be. For starters, we have a lot more control over when and how we watch programs. If I miss a live episode I have plenty of options to still view the episode such as via online, DVR, or in some cases OnDemand. While these options have been embraced by viewers, Nielsen appears to have no clue what to do in response.
Nielen continues to report that the majority of television is viewed live. Meaning that the number of viewers watching online for example don’t really need to be counted because the numbers are allegedly so small. I feel this is utter nonsense and especially in terms of daytime television in specific soap operas.
Now while I can’t really picture too many viewers finding alternative ways to view episodes of programs such as The Talk or The Chew, I feel that these new viewing options are very important to soaps. The majority of women working has increased hugely since soaps first became televised. This doesn’t make these programs irrelevant. It just means that fans have had to find other ways to watch their shows.
Let’s take a look at my viewing habits. I work from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday typically. This of course means that I can not watch General Hospital when it originally airs. Since I am lucky enough to still have SoapNet, I will watch my soap at 8:00 p.m. after work. I will also watch episodes online at abc.com once they become available. These options work great for me and I think it is safe to assume that these options are pretty typical for other viewers as well.
So what does this mean as far as Nielsen ratings are concerned and how does one make sure that his/her viewing habits are counted? That is a good question for which many fans would love to know the answer. It seems that the responsibility of monitoring ratings has fallen in the hands of the viewers. Nielsen should be adapting to the new ways in which programming is viewed but it is not. While I am not an expert, as a viewer I will attempt to answer that question.
If you can’t watch your show live, DVR it and watch it the same day that it was broadcasted. These numbers are now counted in the ratings. If you don’t have a DVR, watch online at the network’s website so that the network can see your viewings. Do this instead of YouTube.
Perhaps the trickiest solution is to get more viewers to watch live. It seems simple but it isn’t of course for reason already discussed. For starters your live view won’t even count unless you have a Nielsen box or book. I think the trick to overcoming this obstacle is to encourage others to become soap fans and start watching. Their live viewings may be counted. Talk to others about your show and let them know what you like about it. Tell them to watch because it is a great program and they will be entertained. Create positive buzz online via Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Message Boards, etc.
It seems backwards that viewers have to be so careful of how they watch soaps. Tracking viewership is really Nielsen’s job after all. However until Nielsen adapts to new viewing habits though I believe it is worth the effort to make sure they are counting us.
Sources and further reading:
Why Nielsen RAtings Are Inaccurate, and Why They’ll Stay That Way
http://splitsider.com/2011/01/why-nielsen-ratings-are-inaccurate-and-why-theyll-stay-that-way/
Ratings - Frequently Asked Questions About Nielsen Ratings
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2010/09/19/frequently-asked-questions-about-nielsen-ratings-405515/ratings_faq/
Dispatches From the Couch: The Big Lie
http://www.thetvaddict.com/2012/05/17/dispatches-from-the-couch-the-big-lie/
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
ABC: The New Coke of Daytime Television or Dissecting a Bad Decision
There are those who are trendsetters and then there are those who hopelessly try to follow. Currently ABC Daytime is the later. It has decided to jump on the education reality show bandwagon...about five years give or take a little after this became the trend of course. Instead of looking to it’s audience to see what they wanted, it apparently decided to channel surf and see what other channel’s audiences were watching. What was the result of this hack form of research? The cancellation of soap operas for The Chew and The Revolution.
The most common reasons that viewers have been given for the replacement of soaps with these programs has been the idea that viewers want educational programs instead of entertainment programs and money. I’ll argue that both of these statements are the results of bad marketing research on the part of ABC Daytime.
First let’s start with the idea that ABC Daytime viewers want educational programing instead of soap operas. ABC Daytime viewers do not want this type of programming. Viewers that want to watch cooking shows watch the Food Network and Cooking Channel. Viewers who want to watch programs about make-overs watch What Not to Wear on TLC. Viewers who want to watch programs about home design watch HGTV. I could go on but I won’t. My point is that ABC Daytime wasn’t looking at what THEIR viewers wanted. Their viewers wanted soap operas which is something they can’t find on these other networks.
That ABC would think it was smart to mimic these channels in the first place is mind boggling. Not because these channels don’t provide good programming but because the programming they provide is lower rated than the programming that ABC daytime was providing. Cable networks don’t have to have as high of ratings because their audiences are already paying for their station. They don’t have to rely only on advertising dollars. Let’s compare the numbers. In 2011, season 8 of What Not to Wear average 1.2 million viewers. For the week of March 12, 2012, The Revolution averaged 1.33 million viewers. In 2011, One Life to Live averaged about 2.4 million viewers. Did ABC not only want to mimic TLC’s programming but its ratings as well?
To add insult to injury, not only is ABC Daytime trying to copy lower rated cable networks but it is providing a bad imitation of these programs. The programs appear to have been designed with the goal of cheap production over quality. They relied on the brand recognition of other channels by hiring hosts such as Tim Gunn from Lifetime’s Project Runway and Mario Batali from Food Network’s Iron Chief to bring in viewers instead of the actual content of the show. They’re not even good knock offs. It’s like a department store trying to sell a handbag with a “LX” design on it and telling customers it’s Louie Vuitton. The customers are buying it.
So what about the cost of soap operas compared to reality shows? It’s true soap operas are not cheap and because of this they need to bring in the viewers in order to drive up advertising prices. I can see where the cost of producing a soap opera could make a network question keeping that program. However, these shows were bringing in viewers even without any promotion from the network. Why didn’t ABC just try to promote it’s own programming to gain viewership? Why didn’t ABC do research on how to improve their soaps and hire good creative teams to boost their appeal? It never did that. I take care for the things I spend money on.
The end result of ABC’s carelessness has angered viewers and cost them ratings and reputation. The Chew and The Revolution have been ridiculed by the press. In a recent article on Forbes.com, columnists Roger Friedman even compared the new ABC Daytime line up to the New Coke and Tropicana container disasters. This is a very good comparison. These are both classic examples of companies “Spending time in design houses instead of spending time with your customers."
In the cases of the New Coke and Tropicana disasters, both companies went back to their original products. Hopefully, ABC can learn a thing or two from their own debacle and not cancel another soap opera. I really hated New Coke.
The most common reasons that viewers have been given for the replacement of soaps with these programs has been the idea that viewers want educational programs instead of entertainment programs and money. I’ll argue that both of these statements are the results of bad marketing research on the part of ABC Daytime.
First let’s start with the idea that ABC Daytime viewers want educational programing instead of soap operas. ABC Daytime viewers do not want this type of programming. Viewers that want to watch cooking shows watch the Food Network and Cooking Channel. Viewers who want to watch programs about make-overs watch What Not to Wear on TLC. Viewers who want to watch programs about home design watch HGTV. I could go on but I won’t. My point is that ABC Daytime wasn’t looking at what THEIR viewers wanted. Their viewers wanted soap operas which is something they can’t find on these other networks.
That ABC would think it was smart to mimic these channels in the first place is mind boggling. Not because these channels don’t provide good programming but because the programming they provide is lower rated than the programming that ABC daytime was providing. Cable networks don’t have to have as high of ratings because their audiences are already paying for their station. They don’t have to rely only on advertising dollars. Let’s compare the numbers. In 2011, season 8 of What Not to Wear average 1.2 million viewers. For the week of March 12, 2012, The Revolution averaged 1.33 million viewers. In 2011, One Life to Live averaged about 2.4 million viewers. Did ABC not only want to mimic TLC’s programming but its ratings as well?
To add insult to injury, not only is ABC Daytime trying to copy lower rated cable networks but it is providing a bad imitation of these programs. The programs appear to have been designed with the goal of cheap production over quality. They relied on the brand recognition of other channels by hiring hosts such as Tim Gunn from Lifetime’s Project Runway and Mario Batali from Food Network’s Iron Chief to bring in viewers instead of the actual content of the show. They’re not even good knock offs. It’s like a department store trying to sell a handbag with a “LX” design on it and telling customers it’s Louie Vuitton. The customers are buying it.
So what about the cost of soap operas compared to reality shows? It’s true soap operas are not cheap and because of this they need to bring in the viewers in order to drive up advertising prices. I can see where the cost of producing a soap opera could make a network question keeping that program. However, these shows were bringing in viewers even without any promotion from the network. Why didn’t ABC just try to promote it’s own programming to gain viewership? Why didn’t ABC do research on how to improve their soaps and hire good creative teams to boost their appeal? It never did that. I take care for the things I spend money on.
The end result of ABC’s carelessness has angered viewers and cost them ratings and reputation. The Chew and The Revolution have been ridiculed by the press. In a recent article on Forbes.com, columnists Roger Friedman even compared the new ABC Daytime line up to the New Coke and Tropicana container disasters. This is a very good comparison. These are both classic examples of companies “Spending time in design houses instead of spending time with your customers."
In the cases of the New Coke and Tropicana disasters, both companies went back to their original products. Hopefully, ABC can learn a thing or two from their own debacle and not cancel another soap opera. I really hated New Coke.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Why we should watch General Hospital
When a ship is sinking you should jump, right? Not if you can save the ship and its passengers. The sinking ship I am referencing of course is General Hospital and the viewers are its captain. I think fans can make a difference before this soap becomes dead in the water.
So why do I think that it is so important to for General Hospital to stay on the air? To be honest General Hospital hasn’t been that great lately - even downright dreadful at some points. If a show isn’t entertaining me, I usually don’t care if it lives or dies. But this is different. General Hospital is part of a genre that I love.
General Hospital hasn’t always been this lifeless. For a long time it was very entertaining and popular. It had the most famous super couple of probably all time and adventurous storylines with spies, gangsters, and evil rich widows played by Elizabeth Taylor. Unfortunately the adventure has been replaced by long depressed conversations about being depressed, the gangsters have overtaken the show, and James Franco is no Liz Taylor. These things need to change.
General Hospital’s biggest problem right now is the writing and sad story lines. This is on it’s way to being fixed via new executive producer and head writer. The old creative team was killing the show. I’m not saying that Frank Valentini and Ron Carlivati are going to save the show but it’s a step in the right direction. What they did with One Life To Live this last year was amazing and fun to watch. Added bonus - Carlivati is a long time fan of General Hospital so he cares about the show.
Another reason to start watching General Hospital again is the addition and return of some fan favorite characters and soap actors. No offense to Mr. Franco but this is what TPTB should have been doing to try to boost ratings in the first place. Franco’s character was just a little too out there and did nothing to boost ratings. It just ended up being something for Joel McHale to make fun of on The Soup. On the other hand, bringing back popular characters who have family connections to the show and can be easily worked into current character story lines in a positive way makes more sense. And, although a little controversial, bring in popular One Live to Life characters to fill in some missing character gaps (Starr as the smart young leading lady and John as the hero type) is in my opinion a smart move.
So with some of the creative changes on the way for General Hospital, I am remaining optimistic that the show can once again become must see TV. I think that fans of the soap genre should give the show a try if they aren’t watching. If after a few weeks you just don’t like it you can always stop watching but I have a feeling that some good things are about to happen.
Another major reason to watch General Hospital is that there are only four daytime soaps left now and it would be a tragedy for that number to drop even more. Soap fans need to send executives the message that we would rather watch soaps than cheaply put together “educational” reality programing. TV executives don’t care about our feelings or the soap genre at all really but they love money and ratings. It’s not enough to just not watch The Chew and The Revolution. If those shows have low ratings they will just be placed with other shows like them. However if ratings for soap operas increase and fans show a demand for them, we may not only be able to keep the soaps that we have but maybe the number of daytime dramas can increase again in the future.
So why do I think that it is so important to for General Hospital to stay on the air? To be honest General Hospital hasn’t been that great lately - even downright dreadful at some points. If a show isn’t entertaining me, I usually don’t care if it lives or dies. But this is different. General Hospital is part of a genre that I love.
General Hospital hasn’t always been this lifeless. For a long time it was very entertaining and popular. It had the most famous super couple of probably all time and adventurous storylines with spies, gangsters, and evil rich widows played by Elizabeth Taylor. Unfortunately the adventure has been replaced by long depressed conversations about being depressed, the gangsters have overtaken the show, and James Franco is no Liz Taylor. These things need to change.
General Hospital’s biggest problem right now is the writing and sad story lines. This is on it’s way to being fixed via new executive producer and head writer. The old creative team was killing the show. I’m not saying that Frank Valentini and Ron Carlivati are going to save the show but it’s a step in the right direction. What they did with One Life To Live this last year was amazing and fun to watch. Added bonus - Carlivati is a long time fan of General Hospital so he cares about the show.
Another reason to start watching General Hospital again is the addition and return of some fan favorite characters and soap actors. No offense to Mr. Franco but this is what TPTB should have been doing to try to boost ratings in the first place. Franco’s character was just a little too out there and did nothing to boost ratings. It just ended up being something for Joel McHale to make fun of on The Soup. On the other hand, bringing back popular characters who have family connections to the show and can be easily worked into current character story lines in a positive way makes more sense. And, although a little controversial, bring in popular One Live to Life characters to fill in some missing character gaps (Starr as the smart young leading lady and John as the hero type) is in my opinion a smart move.
So with some of the creative changes on the way for General Hospital, I am remaining optimistic that the show can once again become must see TV. I think that fans of the soap genre should give the show a try if they aren’t watching. If after a few weeks you just don’t like it you can always stop watching but I have a feeling that some good things are about to happen.
Another major reason to watch General Hospital is that there are only four daytime soaps left now and it would be a tragedy for that number to drop even more. Soap fans need to send executives the message that we would rather watch soaps than cheaply put together “educational” reality programing. TV executives don’t care about our feelings or the soap genre at all really but they love money and ratings. It’s not enough to just not watch The Chew and The Revolution. If those shows have low ratings they will just be placed with other shows like them. However if ratings for soap operas increase and fans show a demand for them, we may not only be able to keep the soaps that we have but maybe the number of daytime dramas can increase again in the future.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Bad Romance - The Dissolving of Daytime Soaps
It seems lately that the once beloved soap genre can’t get any respect. Once the darlings of daytime, they are now near extinction and being replaced by reality and educational programing. This bad break-up between the soap genre and daytime television has been heartbreaking for many soap fans. So what happened to make what seemed like a happy marriage end in divorce?
While I am only a humble fan, I would like to share some of my thoughts on what I feel lead to the downfall of soap operas.
Soaps didn't get a chance to flaunt their assets
Soap operas have a lot of talent yet most soap stars are not household names like many primetime actors. While most tv shows want viewers to become familiar with their casts and work to promote the actors as a way of promoting the program, soaps have not done a very good job of this at all. While non soap fans probably know Susan Lucci, next to none of them could tell you who six time Emmy winner Erika Slezak is. She doesn’t exist outside the genre. Why wasn’t she promoted more? While Susan Lucci deserves the attention she gets, why did daytime not want to showcase all its actors?
Take a look at some of the now household names that did start on soaps. I’ll use Sarah Michelle Gellar and Kelly Rippa as examples. Everyone knows Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Regis’s co-host. These talented ladies didn’t become famous until after they left the soap genre. The message that gives is that soaps are merely starting spots for actors and that they can only be stars after they leave.
Daytime television should have been making stars. There are lot of people who will tune into a show simply because they like one of the actors on it.
Pass the trash
If someone didn’t do well in his previous job, why would you hire that same person to do the exact same job again? Yet this has been happening for years in regards to soaps. Head writers and executive producers who make major mistakes on one series could always count on being hired onto another series. Now I won’t name any names - as tempting as it may be - but we soap fans know who they are.
To put it simply, soaps need people who love and understand the genre and it’s fans doing the creative work behind the scenes. If a head writer or executive producer is killing off the show’s heroines, breaking up it’s super couples, and unnecessarily recasting characters with their friends, they need to find another line of work and shouldn’t be rehired. Stuff like this can upset viewers and cause lasting damage to the show.
Not enough love in the afternoon
The soap genre is about romance, family, and all the crazy stuff in between. It’s escapism but also relatable. The story line should be keep character driven. Fans should see the good and bad decisions the characters take and those decision should be what moves the story forward. When a female lead falls hard, the viewers need to fall with her. Characters need to be fleshed out and couples need to have chemistry. You need the right actors to do this. It can’t just look good on paper or in theory. It needs to sizzle on the screen. Viewers will forgive the occasional crazy plot line if they care about the characters.
Soaps need to change with the times
While primetime tv has evolve in production values, not much has changed with soaps. Soaps need to look modern for modern times. Now this doesn’t mean going all experimental and filming everything with handheld cameras and renting houses in New Jersey is the way to go at all. I talking more about little changes such as more realistic settings and housekeepers who don’t wear french maid outfits.
Soaps have a bad reputation
I feel as though soaps have kind of gotten a bad reputation mostly in part to some of things I mentioned above. Things such as bad acting, crazy plots, and gratuitous sex are thought by many to be the characteristics of a soap opera. While to a certain degree this reputation has been earned, there is and can be so much more to a soap than that. Soaps can also have powerful acting, realistically explore important social issues, and showcase relatable relationships. Soaps need to work on building their reputation with the public and shaking that old bad one.
Soaps are not profitable
The universal excuse for the cancellation of soaps seems to be money. I blame this on the same networks who are saying this. How can primetime shows with less viewers be considered “hit shows” but soap operas not be? I think it’s because the daytime executives didn’t adapt with the changing times of television and didn’t actively look for creative ways to make the shows profitable.
Primetime shows have less episodes to produce which means less cost. Soap opera programming could have tried to achieve something more like this by having seasons instead of year round episodes or by simply cutting their time in half and moving back to half hour formats. An airline was able to save millions of dollars simply by removing one olive from each salad it served. This would have had the same effect.
Another option would be to add some product placement to the shows. Not only would this generate some income for the show but I think it would actually improve the shows. Name brand products exist in real life. It would be more realistic in my opinion to see a character eat a bowel of Cheerios rather than something from a cereal box with no name on it.
And why not sell DVD sets for soaps centered around favorite story lines? DVD box sets are a given for all primetime shows anymore and they create revenue for those shows. With the exception of a few DVDS of already cancelled soaps, these are not available for soap fans. If I want to watch a classic episode of my favorite soap, I have to watch it on YouTube. The quality isn’t always the best and the show doesn’t get a dime when I do this.
Is there still hope?
While daytime television may not love our soaps anymore, primetime has become the genre’s Prince Charming. Show like Once Upon a Time and Revenge are thriving. Dallas is returning on cable. Sudsy shows such as Game of Thrones and Mad Men are critically acclaimed. It should be a good time to be a soap opera, right?
Unfortunately some network executives don’t see it that way. I think that in order for soaps to survive, they may need to find a new home either via cable or online. If your boyfriend doesn’t love you anymore, dump him and find someone who does.
As for the four remaining daytime soaps, I think fans need to show our support by tuning in. When I thought that the soaps would last forever it was easy to watch them sporadically. Now I know to watch regularly. Soaps still matter and they need our help.
While I am only a humble fan, I would like to share some of my thoughts on what I feel lead to the downfall of soap operas.
Soaps didn't get a chance to flaunt their assets
Soap operas have a lot of talent yet most soap stars are not household names like many primetime actors. While most tv shows want viewers to become familiar with their casts and work to promote the actors as a way of promoting the program, soaps have not done a very good job of this at all. While non soap fans probably know Susan Lucci, next to none of them could tell you who six time Emmy winner Erika Slezak is. She doesn’t exist outside the genre. Why wasn’t she promoted more? While Susan Lucci deserves the attention she gets, why did daytime not want to showcase all its actors?
Take a look at some of the now household names that did start on soaps. I’ll use Sarah Michelle Gellar and Kelly Rippa as examples. Everyone knows Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Regis’s co-host. These talented ladies didn’t become famous until after they left the soap genre. The message that gives is that soaps are merely starting spots for actors and that they can only be stars after they leave.
Daytime television should have been making stars. There are lot of people who will tune into a show simply because they like one of the actors on it.
Pass the trash
If someone didn’t do well in his previous job, why would you hire that same person to do the exact same job again? Yet this has been happening for years in regards to soaps. Head writers and executive producers who make major mistakes on one series could always count on being hired onto another series. Now I won’t name any names - as tempting as it may be - but we soap fans know who they are.
To put it simply, soaps need people who love and understand the genre and it’s fans doing the creative work behind the scenes. If a head writer or executive producer is killing off the show’s heroines, breaking up it’s super couples, and unnecessarily recasting characters with their friends, they need to find another line of work and shouldn’t be rehired. Stuff like this can upset viewers and cause lasting damage to the show.
Not enough love in the afternoon
The soap genre is about romance, family, and all the crazy stuff in between. It’s escapism but also relatable. The story line should be keep character driven. Fans should see the good and bad decisions the characters take and those decision should be what moves the story forward. When a female lead falls hard, the viewers need to fall with her. Characters need to be fleshed out and couples need to have chemistry. You need the right actors to do this. It can’t just look good on paper or in theory. It needs to sizzle on the screen. Viewers will forgive the occasional crazy plot line if they care about the characters.
Soaps need to change with the times
While primetime tv has evolve in production values, not much has changed with soaps. Soaps need to look modern for modern times. Now this doesn’t mean going all experimental and filming everything with handheld cameras and renting houses in New Jersey is the way to go at all. I talking more about little changes such as more realistic settings and housekeepers who don’t wear french maid outfits.
Soaps have a bad reputation
I feel as though soaps have kind of gotten a bad reputation mostly in part to some of things I mentioned above. Things such as bad acting, crazy plots, and gratuitous sex are thought by many to be the characteristics of a soap opera. While to a certain degree this reputation has been earned, there is and can be so much more to a soap than that. Soaps can also have powerful acting, realistically explore important social issues, and showcase relatable relationships. Soaps need to work on building their reputation with the public and shaking that old bad one.
Soaps are not profitable
The universal excuse for the cancellation of soaps seems to be money. I blame this on the same networks who are saying this. How can primetime shows with less viewers be considered “hit shows” but soap operas not be? I think it’s because the daytime executives didn’t adapt with the changing times of television and didn’t actively look for creative ways to make the shows profitable.
Primetime shows have less episodes to produce which means less cost. Soap opera programming could have tried to achieve something more like this by having seasons instead of year round episodes or by simply cutting their time in half and moving back to half hour formats. An airline was able to save millions of dollars simply by removing one olive from each salad it served. This would have had the same effect.
Another option would be to add some product placement to the shows. Not only would this generate some income for the show but I think it would actually improve the shows. Name brand products exist in real life. It would be more realistic in my opinion to see a character eat a bowel of Cheerios rather than something from a cereal box with no name on it.
And why not sell DVD sets for soaps centered around favorite story lines? DVD box sets are a given for all primetime shows anymore and they create revenue for those shows. With the exception of a few DVDS of already cancelled soaps, these are not available for soap fans. If I want to watch a classic episode of my favorite soap, I have to watch it on YouTube. The quality isn’t always the best and the show doesn’t get a dime when I do this.
Is there still hope?
While daytime television may not love our soaps anymore, primetime has become the genre’s Prince Charming. Show like Once Upon a Time and Revenge are thriving. Dallas is returning on cable. Sudsy shows such as Game of Thrones and Mad Men are critically acclaimed. It should be a good time to be a soap opera, right?
Unfortunately some network executives don’t see it that way. I think that in order for soaps to survive, they may need to find a new home either via cable or online. If your boyfriend doesn’t love you anymore, dump him and find someone who does.
As for the four remaining daytime soaps, I think fans need to show our support by tuning in. When I thought that the soaps would last forever it was easy to watch them sporadically. Now I know to watch regularly. Soaps still matter and they need our help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)