By Sara A. Bibel
Fancast.com
Bringing The Sexy Back: Hooray for Hot Naked Men!
Today I’d like to ponder how daytime’s representations of gender roles…. Oh, screw it. It’s Friday. So let’s get ready for the weekend by celebrating the return of a classic soap staple: steamy sex scenes and lots of male skin! The past couple weeks has featured so much visual joy that I need to break it down by categories. Actual sex: Sami and EJ, Philip and Chloe (Days of Our Lives), Rick and Taylor (The Bold & The Beautiful) Purely gratuitous: Daniel is a towel (Days of Our Lives), Brody in black boxer briefs, Rex making breakfast in his underwear, and David tied up while shirtless (all One Life To Live) shirtless war veterans (Philip and Brody), shirtless men with professional degrees (E.J. and Daniel.) At the risk of sounding like a complete perv, the sex is one of the reasons daytime was great back in the 80s and 90s. I still have fond memories of specific scenes (Mason and Julia in a sleeping bag, Jake and Paulina and an ice cube, Steve and Kayla in a bathtub.) In recent years, networks have asked soaps to scale it back for fear of FCC fines. I don’t blame them; they had to shell out millions of dollars due to the complaints of a few viewers who apparently lack the ability to change the channel. Suddenly, the sexy has made a welcome return. Whether it’s the warm weather, post-strike optimism, or the realization that we’re likely to have somebody new running the FCC soon, I hope this trend last a long, long time.
Putting the Soap Back In SoapNet
I do a fair amount of my soap watching via SoapNet. That’s getting harder and harder to do since SoapNet seems less and less interested in broadcasting soaps. They first earned my ire by cancelling Another World just after Alicia Coppola’s Lorna – one of my favorite kick-ass female characters ever – showed up. I personally knew a dozen 18-49 year olds who watched it every day. But, as someone who used to analyze Nielsen ratings for a living, I understand that when the numbers aren’t there sometimes a network has to make a tough call. (I think the small Nielsen sample size makes the ratings for low to medium coverage cable channels statistically inaccurate, but until the system gets fixed, everyone’s stuck with it.) I accepted the arrival of The O.C. and One Tree Hill on the network. They are in the soap genre.
But I, along with every right thinking soap fan was ticked off last summer when the network aired The Fashionista Diaries, a lame rip-off of the The Hills about interns at fashion companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with soap operas. It just felt wrong. Fortunately, the ratings tanked while the General Hospital spin-off Night Shift did well. I assumed the network had learned its lesson. But now the network is airing bad MOWs on Sunday night. They’re promoting the heck out of Relative Madness, a documentary series about celebrity foibles that would fit better on the E! network. (But in its inaugural airing, it didn’t attract as big an audience as the time period’s regular occupant, Days of Our Lives. Go figure.)
Based on interviews he’s given, SoapNet executive Brian Frons’ intent is to broaden the appeal of the network. Other cable channels have succeeded by abandoning their original formats. Bravo used to feature PBS-type programming about the arts before it prospered as the home for reality shows that women and gay men love. The difference is that that Bravo’s original format was vaguely defined and featured the sort of programming that has never garnered a large audience.
SoapNet, in contrast, was a channel viewers had demanded for years. Its launch campaign encouraged soap fans to call their cable companies and demand it. They did. It’s more like Comedy Central – the channel’s concept is right there in its name. SoapNet’s early original programming (the talk show Soap Talk, and Soapography – which featured the life story of soap actors) performed poorly. It appears that the network concluded soap-related programming was destined to fail. I posit that the reason it failed was because it wasn’t very good. Soap Talk awkwardly transitioned between forced attempts at Regis & Kelly style banter, interviews with soap actors and segments on cooking and fashion. The early line-ups difficulties are the natural growing pains of a new cable channel. Comedy Central began with a schedule of Benny Hill reruns and old stand-up specials. The network went through a major evolution. But its goal of making people laugh never changed. SoapNet’s current strategy makes its core audience feel underappreciated, potentially driving them away.
Chris Anderson’s writings on The Long Tail Theory argue that in the internet era, a genre can succeed even with a smaller number of fans provided those fans are passionate. (If you want a more detailed explanation check out his book The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More. Who says a soap blog can’t be nerdy?) I hope that SoapNet will consider this. I’d like to believe there is an audience for interesting, well produced channel dedicated to all things soapy. If the network wants to broaden its audience, how about persuading non-soap viewers to check it out? A campaign along the lines of Grey’s Anatomy is in reruns, but General Hospital’s all new. (Of course, then GH would have to start featuring the hospital as much as the mob. Talk about a win-win.)
Comments (4)
Hi: This blog is a heavenly gift. I wanted to ask you two questions:
First, you said:
"But, as someone who used to analyze Nielsen ratings for a living, I understand that when the numbers aren’t there sometimes a network has to make a tough call. (I think the small Nielsen sample size makes the ratings for low to medium coverage cable channels statistically inaccurate, but until the system gets fixed, everyone’s stuck with it.)"
Can you tell us more about this? Tell us how you trained and became Neilsen-affiliated. And then how you left to write soaps. Believe it or not, your biography fascinates us...it helps us understand the pathways that lead people to this industry.
Second, you said:
"...The Fashionista Diaries...the ratings tanked while the General Hospital spin-off Night Shift did well. ...Relative Madness...it didn’t attract as big an audience as the time period’s regular occupant, Days of Our Lives."
You are providing data that us ordinary folk don't seem to be able to find. How are you learning about the SoapNet ratings? I think knowing them would really empower fans (with the caveats you stated above about ratings validity/reliability on small niche channels) to understand what is and is not succeeding on Soapnet. I think that is why Mr. Frons doesn't want us to know them :-).
Posted by MarkH | June 1, 2008 10:16 AM
Posted on June 1, 2008 10:16
In an earlier blog I was so overjoyed to read, "On The Young & The Restless, for a while the writers were told that no conversation should last longer than one scene. After all, they don’t in primetime."
I started noticing that almost immediately when the LML massacre occurred. In my own "humble-ish" opinion, completing every conversation before the scene was over, really took away most, if not all suspense created in the show. It made things move like a bat out of hell, and as a viewer you could barely keep up; and even if you did you didn't feel involved enough to care about what was happening.
As you go on to say: "If that proved impossible, then it was imperative that there not be any “frozen time” moments – conversations that pick up right where they left off. They made the show seem slow. (Never mind that Y&R had been #1 every week since the Reagan administration by moving at an often glacial pace.)", I really couldn't agree more. The show was so successful week after week, year after year, hell, decade after decade; and yet TPTB still decided to "shake things up".
Up until 2005, I believe Y&R was the only daytime soap not to follow the trend of shaking up the writers and production team. But apparently they couldn't stay away from the trend forever because even though it was evident that other soaps were not successful with bringing in more viewers by changing the writers and production team, Y&R still opted to do that.
My question for you is why? And even now, Why are they doing what they're doing to Y&R? It's like Barbara Bloom realized her big mistake in shaking things up -- BUT instead of trying to fix it by bringing back the long time dream team of writers/directors and producers they've instead opted to try and bring in more NEW writers in an attempt to restore the show.
IMHO Barbara and anyone else over there - The only way to get Y&R back to its glory is to put the show back in the hands of the people that the remarkable and dexterous William J. Bell left it in.
It's a chagrin to see the once glorious daytime drama fall into the marry-go-round of staff that all the other soaps earlier tried AND failed at doing.
Posted by Jordan | June 1, 2008 2:38 PM
Posted on June 1, 2008 14:38
Hey, Sara!
Could you tell us how did you get the job on Y&R? And do you have any advice for screenwriting novices?
Thank you!
Posted by SamanthaNC | June 1, 2008 3:22 PM
Posted on June 1, 2008 15:22
You said: "At the risk of sounding like a complete perv, the sex is one of the reasons daytime was great back in the 80s and 90s."
I do agree with you here, however, Y&R had an awesome duo between Adrianne Leon and Eyal Podell (Colleen & Adrian); they had such wonderful chemistry together and then LML fired Adrianne. That was such a waste of wonderful talent (AL) and a dynamic duo! I'm still fuming almost a year later that this wonderful couple was destroyed just by the firing. We need more couples like them that can speak to each other with just their eyes, not the drivel that we're getting now with Victor & Sabrina and Cane & Lily!!
Posted by Karrie | June 2, 2008 10:53 PM
Posted on June 2, 2008 22:53