Options
Is the ratings decline of soaps largely irreversiable?
Hildaonpluto
Posts: 37,697 Forum Member
✭
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2015486&page=371
Sorry I tried to multiquote from the ratings thread but either my mobile phone wont have it or its not possible to quote from one ds forum into another?
Anyway its the second post down in particular that started of a good little discussion on the ratings forum about the predicament of tv soaps as a genre.It was quite a thoughtful debate in part because it wasnt tribal and was talking about all the soaps and not just focusing on one.
Basically its not predicting the "immediate death" of soaps as such but it analyses the sharp decline in their ratings and influence and how this is expected to play out into the future.
Many good points made and I will link to more pages on there so I can basically transfer some of that debate and its value to here.
While we as soap fans desire our shows to do better and rate better -Its beginning to look like when even strenous efforts are deployed into consisently returning a soap to higher ratings are tried and everything including the kitchen sink is thrown at a show-Its now making no big difference no matter how you measure the ratings it seems the decline whether fast or slow cant really be changed.
I think in the case of EastEnders as some point out on the thread that they neglected it and shredded viewers for way too long before the bbc acted and in todays media environment theirs a fair few who aint coming back and the stubborn ratings for the most part seem to be bearing that out.The rate of decline how now slowed but much lost ground aint being made up.
But ITV are heading the same way with Corrie and if they drag their heels for too much longer then they will take a hit that cant be recouped at a later date.
Will post more links soon but really the question Im asking is in the second post down in this link by Dancc.
Sorry I tried to multiquote from the ratings thread but either my mobile phone wont have it or its not possible to quote from one ds forum into another?
Anyway its the second post down in particular that started of a good little discussion on the ratings forum about the predicament of tv soaps as a genre.It was quite a thoughtful debate in part because it wasnt tribal and was talking about all the soaps and not just focusing on one.
Basically its not predicting the "immediate death" of soaps as such but it analyses the sharp decline in their ratings and influence and how this is expected to play out into the future.
Many good points made and I will link to more pages on there so I can basically transfer some of that debate and its value to here.
While we as soap fans desire our shows to do better and rate better -Its beginning to look like when even strenous efforts are deployed into consisently returning a soap to higher ratings are tried and everything including the kitchen sink is thrown at a show-Its now making no big difference no matter how you measure the ratings it seems the decline whether fast or slow cant really be changed.
I think in the case of EastEnders as some point out on the thread that they neglected it and shredded viewers for way too long before the bbc acted and in todays media environment theirs a fair few who aint coming back and the stubborn ratings for the most part seem to be bearing that out.The rate of decline how now slowed but much lost ground aint being made up.
But ITV are heading the same way with Corrie and if they drag their heels for too much longer then they will take a hit that cant be recouped at a later date.
Will post more links soon but really the question Im asking is in the second post down in this link by Dancc.
0
Comments
Sorry I seem unable to post individual quotes?But post from Glenn a and one below it in particular Ive noted as being of interest.Basically saying overkill has burnt the goose that laid the golden egg?!
Look out for the post by JohnnyMc about the importance of EastEnders to the arguments for justifying the licence fee.
To my mind illustrating the bbcs neglect of EastEnders being really foolish on a strategic level.
Normally the ratings thread and soaps are like a mindfield but here is a good example of a quality mature discussion emerging.
Thoughts?
And the UK whose soaps are quite a distinct/different beast?
I actually think/feel that understanding and adjusting our expectations is better than constantly expecting ratings to be better or being a soap producing team chasing those higher and higher ratings being more outlandish etc and actually counterproductive and accelerating the decline.
Adjusting expectations in light of "getting whats going on" is quite positive?
The trend extends way back though,apart from a little zig zagging its affected all soaps for 10 years.
Young viewers seem more likely to be fickle and less loyal to a show if it goes below par?
with reference to eastenders, i don't think it will regularly get 8 - 9 million viewers again, it will get the odd high ratings, but i think the average is going to be around 6.5 million, in fact the average for all of the continuing drama's will drop. the good news for eastenders is, it has bottomed out and is not shedding the viewers as much. eastenders is the most stable out of the big 3.
will itv take action over the drop of their soaps, i doubt it. stuart the hat will probably get his contract renewed if he wants to stay on.
That would be very foolish of ITV to do that!
I wonder what the average in a decade will be?
One of the interesting points made in the thread I linked too was what it would mean if there WASNT a significant upturn in ratings in EastEnders live week.Although this thread isnt just about EastEnders but all the same it would be arguably indicative.
UK soaps are a very different beast than a U.S. soap. A U.S. soap is aired in the early afternoon and is written for housewives primarily. Yes some people record those and watch them later, but the primary audience is stay at home mothers. So many woman work now that a large audience for daytime soaps is never coming back. It doesn't much matter what writers and producers do. A really good storyline might achieve a small bump in ratings, but it will be small. I think the days of the day time soap are largely over. Its really hard to compare a soap like East Enders to something like Days of Our Lives; its not a good comparison.
I am expecting the final episode of HO to be like the Crossroads finale.
I think it would be impossible for a big new soap to start from scratch nowadays.
Overegging the pudding is a big factor in this I believe.
* Soaps are too unrealistic nowadays. A lot of storylines are lazy and poorly researched, even medical ones. Such sloppy continuity makes soaps feel like they are just 'wallpaper TV' rather than engaging drama
* The standard of writing isn't anywhere near as good as years ago, and the reason for this is pretty simple - there are far, far too many episodes per week. A daytime soap is okay four or five times a week, but a big-budget, prime time soap doesn't need any more than three episodes a week to make its mark, maybe four at the very most. As long as there are so many episodes, there is no chance of any major new soap opera happening
* Continuity is poor, things get forgotten, terrible things happen to characters and then are never mentioned again
* Soaps have become consilidatory with their audiences; instead of trying to reach out to floating or new viewers altogether, they only seem to appeal to the die-hard audiences. This is entirely self-defeating as the die-hard audience is slowly but surely hemorrhaging
* Poor casting. Soaps are struggling to find any major modern stars, and a lot of people cast in soaps nowadays can barely act!
* The middle classes are largely forgotten. Emmerdale is the only exception, but there are too many working classing characters in it nowadays. In the 90s in particular, the balance of working class and middle class was about 50/50
* It seems quite obvious that some soaps - EE and ED to name but two - have suffered budget cuts in the last five years or so. The consequences of that are clearly evident
* A number of characters - particularly in CS - remaining in their roles long-term, such as Michelle and Sean, are very unpopular
* Bad language and violence has been toned down over the years by Nana OFCOM, and this has reduced the sense of 'reality' that is crucial to any soap
* Soaps often lack real-life issues and instead now seem to be 90% fantastical guff that no-one can relate to
Unless most of these issues are addressed, and soon, the decline will continue.
Oh I fully agree although I do think theres some degree of parallel between the decline of us daytime soaps and primetime uk soaps but the differences are considerable.
How often were US daytime soaps on?
US day time soaps were on 5 days a week in the early afternoon. The three major broadcasters all had a few of them. They have about 40 min or so of acting broken up by adverts. Now they air in what broadcasters consider dead time and they compete against low cost chat shows.
On the other hand night time serialized dramas (soaps by another name) like Grey's Anatomy, Scandal etc. are alive and well in the U.S. and get good ratings. I think the difference is higher production values and they are on less often promoted more etc. I think there is always going to be a market for serialized dramas, but they'll have to evolve to fit today's audiences.
To my mind over the years increasingly british soaps have veered towards becoming more sensationalist when they need to become more radical or gritty.I think when you overplay sensationalism a significant number of viewers longterm disenage and disinvest in a show.
I would have thought that low brow shows like housewives of beverly hills etc were also soaking up the "soap audience"?
Perhaps, I think the largest factor in the demise of the traditional soap opera is that the audience is literally no longer at home. Even a show like the Housewives of Beverly Hills airs in the evenings, so it doesn't really compete with traditional soap operas. I supposed a few would choose to watch a reality show instead of a recorded soap or the soap channel but that would be a small number of people.
I think most who would have watched a soap in years past have given up because they won't commit the time to watch a serialized drama airing in the afternoon. People are working etc. There is an audience for things like that at 8:00 p.m. but they are expected to have higher production values. This is why its not really valid to compare the British soaps and the American daytime soaps the audience at 2:00 pm and 8:00 pm are just radically different.
I think in the UK that reality shows will largely soak up younger viewers which in a way is more "worrying" as their potential future soap viewers who may never develop the habit if they go down the avenue of getting their drama from scripted reality tv shows.
Look what Crossroads did trying to be like Sunset Beach!!
Imagine Corrie like Desperate Housewives? Or EastEnders like 90210 ? NO!!!
Our soaps will stay the same - boring (at times) with a few dramatic scenes thrown in at the same time! And lots of interesting characters!!:)
But seemingly interesting less and less people over time?
For example could they switch up the format or Eastenders to have 2 early evening, almost family friends on Tuesday and Thursday at 7:30PM and on Monday and Friday (or an hour long on Wednesday) have a more intense, graphic, hard hitting and perhaps more stylised episode(s) at 9 or 9:30PM.
They would run simultaneously but almost like 2 different shows. You could almost call the post water shed episodes E20: Later or something similar and bill it as a brand new series to encourage new viewers.
I think audiences today have so many choices that they expect more out of a scripted drama. I think fewer episodes that have higher production values, better scripts would improve the ratings.