Soap Opera Ratings: All Soaps Down Among Women 18-49

Categories: '

Written By

July 14th, 2012

Soap Opera Ratings for the week of July 2-6, 2012

via Soap Opera Network:

Numbers are based on Live+Same Day ratings

(Compared to Last Week/Compared to Last Year)

Total Viewers
1. Y&R 4,505,000 (-38,000/-77,000)
2. B&B 3,115,000 (-223,000/+153,000)
3. DAYS 2,409,000 (+80,000/+139,000)
4. GH 2,242,000 (-35,000/-27,000)

1. Y&R 3.2/10 (-.2/-.1)
2. B&B 2.3/7 (-.2/+.2)
3. DAYS 1.7/5 (same/+.1)
3. GH 1.7/5 (same/same)

Women 18-49 Viewers
1. Y&R 816,000 (-50,000/-98,000)
2. B&B 628,000 (-51,000/+59,000)
3. GH 539,000 (-19,000/-75,000)
4. DAYS 451,000 (-5,000/-168,000)

Women 18-49 Rating
1. Y&R 1.3/8 (-.1/-.1)
2. B&B 1.0/6 (-.1/+.1)
3. GH 0.8/5 (-.1/-.1) <—— ties low
4. DAYS 0.7/5 (same/-.2) <—— ties low (3rd straight week)


Source: Soap Opera Network

Numbers are based on Live+Same Day ratings

(Compared to Last Week/Compared to Last Year)

Y&R = The Young & The Restless, B&B = The Bold and The Beautiful, GH = General Hospital, DAYS = Days of Our Lives.

Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2012 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.

  • Richard


    I don’t think you will see that type of count until the online shows start warranting the same amount of viewers as the TV versions.

    Remember that the Nielsen’s are not to actually measure the popularity of a program.

    The Nielsen ratings biggest no 1 purpose is to measure who is watching, and then that allows the TV networks to set a price for advertising on the show.

    The only reason that they would have in counting all viewers was if they sold ads that would air in the full content when you watch live, on DVD or online — whatever format would have the same commercials. And the advertisers had to pay a flat rate to air on all formats.

    But even though many DVD people claim that they watch the ads and don’t fast forward, you would hear a big outcry from the general public if they could not fast forward through the commercials when they watch later. One of the biggest reasons many say they DVD are the same reasons they have used for years for using a VCR — to save time. They can FF through the commercials and watch 2 episodes in the same time they could watch one live. They say DVD is a convenience for them. I am sure some people do watch the commercials, but I will admit to you the only reason I ever DVD’d a program was so that I could skip the commercials. When I had one I never watched anything live.

    So I doubt you will ever see one of those counts where you will see everything added because the networks have no reason to even want to put out the money to pay for that type of count. They will pay for a count for live viewing plus some DVD to set ad rates only. And they count the online so that they can set some type of ad rates for it. But right now a total count has no purpose to them to put out the extra expense to tabulate a full total.

    Bottom line it all comes about money for the networks. While the fans only think in terms of popularity.

  • Darcy

    With the bad ratings for GH you would think the writers would be changing their writing to bring the viewers back. Maybe these writers are to arrogant to see their mistakes.

  • cc

    I see the soap haters have showed up to spin their gloom. smh

    GH is doing better then Days in the numbers that matter, it is in no way unwatchable, the most buzzed daytime soap.

    The Chew doesn’t have half as many viewers as Days, and don’t start with that cheaper to produce baloney, blah blah blah.

    As for soap ratings in general, right about now, they’re looking pretty good to alot of primetime shows.

  • Richard

    And I see that the soap whiners showed up too. Would you like some cheese to go along with your whining.

    And again I am sure that ABC doesn’t care and it has nothing to do with whether the show costs less or not. ABC is winning with The Chew right now for one reason along. Even this week when the dailies were shown for The Chew as the lead in to GAA. Most days The Chew was hitting a .5 in the 18-34 women demo.

    That is a big win for ABC. That is beating both GH and Days most days in viewers and numbers.

    Add to that The Chew even hit some .7s and .8s in the 18-49 demo this week on some days. Guess what that is tying GH or Days at times.

    I am sure when ABC reads your comment that The Chew doesn’t have as many viewers as Days does and really losing a lot of sleep. The Chew is winning where it counts. Now whether or not it should matter is up for debate among fans, but the fact of the matter ABC is still playing the advertising game and right now they are winning it with The Chew.

    As we have said GH and Days are both building in the over 50 women and the men, but both are losing it where it counts right now. They are getting beaten or tied even by The Chew in the 18-49 and 18-34.

    And whether or not you or others want to accept it or not. IT IS A FACT. Call me or whoever all the names you want but at the end of day it is still the truth and the reality of the situation. Whine and act like a name calling child all you want but you can’t take that away.

    As someone else said ask the almost 7 million viewers who lost their favorite show Harry’s Law. At the end of the day even though it had that many fans it still got cancelled.

  • Richard

    One correction. The Chew did not hit a .8 — it was .6s and .7s in the 18-49.

    Sorry I looked at the numbers wrong.

  • Lisa

    Telenovelas were a massive flop when they aired on MyNetworkTV. True, that was back in 2006-07 and the shows aired at night rather than during the day. That said, I don’t see why anyone really thinks that daytime telenovelas would be successful. I think it would be pretty hard to attract many viewers to even short-term shows that require a several-days-a-week viewing commitment. Plus some soap viewers probably won’t want to watch short-term soaps. Besides, I think the market for telenovelas now is less promising than it was several years ago. Viewership is increasingly fragmented, and the current soaps are dying. All of their ratings stink.

  • JayTN

    cc…you can call if ‘blah, blah, blah’, but that doesn’t mean something isn’t true. Usually when someone cannot refute a topic, they resort to the ‘blah, blah, blah’ retort. Unscripted shows are cheaper to produce, period. It’s a fact. Like it or not. A soap has 10-15 or more contract players and probably another 10-15 recurring characters. Add to that 5-10 writers, producers, directors, and even multiple sets. Unscripted shows usually only have one set that it uses and only a small crew behind the scenes.

    Just look at the ratings for GH vs. “The Chew”…in total viewers, GH had 2.24 million, while “The Chew” had 1.99 million. In W18-49, GH had 539,000 viewers and “The Chew” had 397,000. However, “The Chew” was in reruns all week long. Contrast that to the 1.035 million viewers who watched the GH rerun on Wednesday, July 4 (that episode was not counted in the weekly ratings). Obviously, “The Chew” (and other unscripted series) repeat better than serialized shows like GH. In primetime, networks don’t usually make any money on a series until it has be rerun at least once (one reason why networks are producing more and more of their own programming).

    Personally, “The Chew” coming 240,000 viewers shy of GH in total viewers and 142,000 in the W18-49 demographic in reruns is quite impressive (especially since GH could only muster a little more than 1 million viewers during just one repeat outing). So, not only is “The Chew” easier on ABC’s pocketbook, but it can also repeat better than GH and thus earn ABC even more money.

    People need to quit looking at networks as charity cases that exist only to keep our favorite program on the air. They are businesses who exist to make money. If your favorite show is popular – especially by people between 18-49 – odds are, it will have a long life.

  • Richard

    And another thing to point out is that yes Days is still a bit ahead of The Chew in total viewers. But they are closing in on Days in the 18-49.

    For this same time period Days has 451,000 18-49 women while The Chew now has 397,000 18-49. I think that is the closest they have gotten from the numbers I have seen.

    So again I am sure ABC is still looking at this as a big win.

  • Nick

    @ cc

    You struck out 4 times, earning a golden sombrero, with your comments above.

    1) If you really think that every person on here who’s not waving the soap opera pom-poms with their comments is a “hater”, then you’re paranoid and far too sensitive.

    2) Yes, GH is a bit higher in the key demo than Days, but that’s not saying much as it’s been trending downward at least the last 5 weeks in a row.

    3) Where are you getting that The Chew “doesn’t have half as many viewers as Days?” You may not like or resent The Chew, but don’t distort the facts. Yes, The Chew was down a bit this past week but it was in repeats. In a regular week, The Chew is roughly on par with what Days has been drawing in total viewers and key demos. And sorry, but the lower production costs are not “baloney”. That’s a major factor whether you like it or not.

    4) Comparing soap ratings in daytime to ratings for primetime shows is comparing apples and oranges because of the annual budgets and production costs involved. Most primetime shows film only about 15-25 episodes per season and don’t air new episodes 5x/week year-round.

  • Jack

    When GH moves into its new time slot once occupied by OLTL, will the ABC 2-hour progamming be The Chew and The Indigestion? Women 18-49 are abandoning soaps in favor of Men 18-49.

  • Richard

    The male viewers demo that is counted at SON is for male viewers 18 and above not just 18-49.

    Men 18+ Viewers
    1. Y&R 959,000 (-14,000/-55,000)
    2. B&B 602,000 (-57,000/-47,000)
    3. DAYS 547,000 (+25,000/+56,000)
    4. GH 432,000 (+3,000/+68,000)

    The only age groups that are broken down in daytime are for Women. They used to count all viewers 17 and under together too, but they don’t even count those for daytime any longer.

    Men are just lumped together – even those over 50.

  • Richard

    I didn’t mean to hit send so fast. Sorry.

    Just wanted to say that look at GH. Even though men are rising they still have more women in the 18-45 viewers than do have male viewers from 18-100.

    B&B has still more women in the 18-49 than they do in men.

    Y&R and Days have more total male viewers but still the percentage shows that soaps main audience is still women.

    Thus why still soaps care more about the female viewers.

  • mlauenstein

    I think you will have trouble convincing anyone, let alone the advertisers, that the over-50s are now buying more tampons, diapers and Midol.

  • JayTN

    mlauenstein…I think you will have trouble convincing anyone, let alone the advertisers, that the people in the low end of the 18-49 year old demographic are going to be buying ED related medications, since pharmaceutical companies are some of the biggest buyers of TV ad time.

    What exactly is your point? The only thing you have proven is that items can be marketed to people of certain ages. That is not exactly breaking news. Besides, do you think that people over 50 will never need diapers? ;-)

  • mlauenstein

    I’m saying that if I am an advertiser with a warehouse full of tampons diapers and Midol, and I go to the network and say, “Give me a show with 500,000 18-49 year old women that I can advertise to.” The network is not going to get anywhere by saying, “We’ve only got 300,000, but look, we’ve got another 500,000 50-year-old men. They’re full of brand loyalty and cash.”

  • Karen C

    Cartini is a DISASTER! They are NOT moving the numbers!

  • Richard

    On my point about advertising, what I don’t see is why can’t these advertisers and network officials think about what they have and target their audience with advertising.

    Look at the percentages of what your audience is. How can anyone 50 and over have brand loyalty for items that they are just now needing. If you are just now getting into the age when you might adult diapers, incontinency products, cholesterol medicine, or even ED drugs — then you are going to be looking at the best prices and the best options available to you.

    If a show has a large audience then why not charge advertisers larger money to advertise to an audience that is interested in their products.

    If you are a company who’s major product is adult diapers, then you aren’t going to want to pay to advertise on MTV. You’re going to be willing to pay bigger bucks to advertise to an audience that might need your product.

    I mean you don’t want to make those all of the advertisements during soaps, but it could still be done in a way that would work to both the soaps and the advertisers benefit — if the advertisers would learn to think outside the box they have put themselves into.

    As I said certain shows and networks have already figured that out. Look at where the majority of condom ads are — on the more hipper younger skewing cable networks.

  • mlauenstein

    I think you’ve got it completely backwards.

    The networks aren’t spending millions of dollars on TV shows and then saying, “Let’s see if anyone wants to buy advertising time.”

    The advertisers are saying, “We need x number of people in such-and-such a demographic to advertise Product ALPHA. Put on a show that will skew to those numbers. And we need y number of people in such-and-such a demographic to advertise Product BETA. Put on a show that will draw in our targets.”

    There’s a reason soap companies invented soap operas.

  • ragincajun

    @ Richard,

    The point that I was trying to make about there being an increased number of ads during the online streaming of episodes is that it appears advertisers are finally getting aware of the numbers of viewers that watch the soaps via this format. Yes, it is true that the advertisers pay the nets a fixed rate to advertise shows across all formats, but with the recent higher number of online ads, it appears online soap viewing, well Y&R at least, seems to be appealing to more advertisers, which is a good thing. Yes, the online viewers may not be a much as the DVR+3 viewers, but if the nets can charge just a fraction more for them, it may enable the soaps to survive a few more years.

  • Richard


    I know how things work. And so does Jay Tn and MBMom for that matter.

    What we were doing was offering alternatives or offering ways for advertisers to gain a new way of thinking.

    Just as times are changing with the way people do watch shows there are actual changes in people and the way they spend their money.

    If you will read our posts we were just sharing our scenarios, opinions, etc. We weren’t teaching a college class where we were saying this is the way it is.

    It is funny that just as what you are saying proves our points that advertisers are stuck in a rut with their thumbs up their butts and saying this is the way it was.

    Remember even in the first 15 years of television advertisers made a lot of changes in the way they did things. I have old tapes of Burns and Allen where advertising was done almost just like radio where one minute they were acting out the show and then suddenly those same folks were doing the commercial for the milk.

    And yes those soap ads were invented for the soap operas and thus them being called soap operas.

    But advertisers with soaps are still trying to target ads toward women while their audiences which are still primarily women are no longer primarily in the 18-49 range who are still only interested in buying soap, diapers, and Midol. They act as if they are still advertising to 1960’s women but this is 2012.

© 2015 Tribune Digital Ventures