Decline of soap operas - we're just not watching any more

[EdithWeston]

Says OFCOM

There have been threads deploring the changes in soap operas, and I've given up a Corrie habit that start d in the 1970s because it's so unbearable right now. And vaguely remember reading (on here) about how the makers pay most attention to the Twitter and other social media reaction to episodes rather than anything else. And of course, if that's their measure, then the audiences of yore are irrelevant.

But shouid we be?

The biggest audiences were 30m for Eastenders Christmas 1986 (Den and divorce papers) and 27m for Corrie 1987 Hilda Ogden leaving. These will perhaps never be seen again because of the diversification of broadcasting.

But this is what OFCOM has to say about the decade since 2007:

“Looking atIn 2007, there were 172 soap episodes that attracted ratings of over 10 million. By 2015, there were only four, and ratings have not topped 10 million since that year.
The number of episodes with an audience of eight million or more has fallen from 508 in 2007 to just 63 last year. audiences across the board have fallen in the past decade.
“Looking at these declines by programme genre, we can see that the decreasing popularity of soaps is driving the overall decline"

So they seem to be saying that because people no longer turn on the telly for soaps, they are just not watching any more - decline is soaps is driving overall decline, nit the other way around. Which suggests that getting soaps right is pretty damned important.

This is interesting because I would say this reflects my own change in viewing habits. I have watched Corrie for years and used to love it for its gentle humour and I watched Eastenders from the start and would watch them both regularly, often more from habit than from any burning desire to keep up with the ever more bizarre plots, but in the last 2 years I started to watch less episodes as the storylines started to become more ridiculous and I just couldn't be bothered to keep up with the bizarre plots anymore. A few months ago I realised that it was months since I had watched either and I don't miss them and am in fact glad I have broken the habit. Since I have lost the habit of switching on at 7.30pm to start watching those soaps I find that I either switch on later to watch something specific, usually at 9pm or I am now watching more stuff on amazon prime or catchup tv - both still watched on my TV, but I am definitely watching much less realtime TV. So I would agree that now I have broken those soap habits I watch less realtime TV and probably less TV overall because I am switching on later & only for something specific, because a lot of the time despite the many channels, there is nothing that I am interested in watching.

It's probably because younger people don't tend to watch TV in the same way our parents did.

DH and I never sit in front of the TV in the evening yet this is what people always used to do. We go on our computers instead. He tends to game, I tend to visit web forums. When we watch TV we use catch up or on demand services.

If you're sitting watching whatever is on TV every evening then it makes sense to have something like a soap to follow, but if you're consciously choosing what you want to watch, they just have too many weekly episodes to bother with and they aren't very interesting.

And yes storylines have become increasingly more ridiculous and convoluted.

It's interesting that OFCOM have assumed that the decline in soap viewing has changed general viewing habits, and not the other way around - I would have said it's the opposite, TBH.

they just have too many weekly episodes to bother with

I think that's very true.

And although young people generally might have more years ahead of them in terms of their viewing future, there are enough people whose habits were formed before the internet age to make substantial audiences. If the shows appealed to them, of course. And if marketeers thought that the over 40s were worth advertising to, then they could be very lucrative spots (obvs thinking Corre, not EE)

Yes, but what I mean is that if year on year viewing figures are falling, this is probably because habits are changing in the younger generations.

In the past you could expect it to stay fairly stable because as people got older and stopped watching TV due to ill health or died, younger people would move out of home, continue the same habits and take their place.

Now this doesn't happen so much because other activities - social media, gaming, web forums and so on, as well as on-demand TV services - have overtaken traditional TV-watching as the typical evening entertainment among younger people. Or possibly not overtaken, but certainly intruded in a huge way into people's habits in a way we haven't really seen since TV became more widespread.

IMO it's a bit like people in the 1960s/70s worrying that radio plays had become less exciting - I don't think that was what was causing people to tune into the radio less and less in the evenings. :)

I had watched Corrie, Neighbors and Eastenders since I was born and I stopped watching when I went to uni and found I was too busy in the evenings to keep up with them, when I went back to them after a few years they just seems so badly written and acted and ridiculous that I couldn’t get back into them.

I think Soaps are a bit like smoking, they have to hook you when you’re young and no one starts watching them after the age of 18.

There are a heck of a lot of over 40s in the population.

ONS points out that there are more of them than ever before, and as a proportion of the total population, that figure is growing.

So choosing to tailor content to the (smaller) younger audience, that is believed to be more fickle, might not be the most profitable thing to do.

ONS link - I think it's the most recent, but if it's an annual report, there must be one due soon.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/july2017

Having given up soaps many years back as well as the quantity of episodes (too many) and the quality of both the writing and acting not what it was...

I still think the biggest reason is on demand services people just aren't going to follow Eastenders just because that's what's available - they have options, they can watch an 18 rated drama at 7.30 instead of plastic gangsters who can't even say the F Word

I often thought this myself.

My parents always had Coronation Street, Emmerdale and Eastenders on. But about 12 (i think) year ago, me and my mum decided to stop watching soaps.
It was when the Michelle had just joined Corrie and learned her son had been switched a birth. They just got ridiculous.

Neither of us have been bothered since. Sad really as I grew up with the soaps.

It's weird that Eastenders is always heavy featured in the top of the 'popular' list on. BBC iPlayer - it is still the beebs most watched show based on that?

I watched Eastenders regularly through the 90s but it lost me as a university student when it went up to 4 episodes per week. 2 was great. I frequently missed a third when that was introduced, but 4 meant that I regularly missed half of them.

I did watch intermittently in my 20s when I could just about cobble enough recognisable characters together to follow, but increasingly found the characters changed too much, too incredible or just not enough care for them.

Increasing the volume of episodes made the plots too far fetched and pacey. Back in the 90s on fewer episodes, a major plot built gradually to its climax and there were one or two at a time with credible "real life" in between with a stable cast.

I think I would only recognise Ian Beale today, even if I do end up wondering how he looks middle aged

Oh Jynxa, I wouldn’t worry. Sharon and Phil are still there too with the same old tired storylines. I used to love the soaps but they are just beyond garbage now

The increased number of episodes every week is a massive turn off for me. Two episodes a week you could keep up with. Producers have shot themselves in the foot with the increase. Though having said that, Love Island is on every night and seems to be doing very well indeed.

I used to watch all of them, Brookie, Corrie, EE and Emmerdale. It became impossible when they all started doing more and more episodes, the number of "filler" characters and storylines increased and the quality plummeted. I watched Brookie till the end, EE till about 15 years ago (too depressing), Emmerdale till about 10 years ago (The Dingles ruined it for me) and stuck with Corrie till about 2 years ago (the stories just became more and more ridiculous especially the Connors and Phelan). I miss how they used to be but can't see me going back to any of them. I never, ever thought I'd say that about Corrie, I used to love it so much.

It's sad in s way. I remember the Brookie and Eastender omnibuses being the highlights of my weekend as a teenager. Personally I think they've run out of things to talk about! I also detest the way they think they've got to campaign for social issues eg storylines about cancer, mental health, drug addiction etc. They do some storyline then the relevant actor appears on all the morning shows acting like a great humanitarian for bringing the nation's attention to this cause. Personally I think the soaps were supposed to be a bit of light entertainment. When I've got family members suffering from eg cancer, I really don't want reminded of it when I'm trying to unwind. That's just me perhaps.

All the soaps have a treasure chest of vintage episodes to exploit when TV executives finally reconcile themselves to showing stuff that appeals to their actual market rather than their fantasy one.

Thank God, I think they are pernicious, amoral nonsense that drains the life of the nation. I'd much, much rather ds played Fortnite most of the time (and he does) than ever watch a soap.

I remember way way back, when ?Sharon and ?Wicksy spent the night together in EastEnders, but there was a tense discussion between them about whether it was OK to sleep in the same room, and he slept in a chair. I remember that Charlene and Scott got married at 16 and 17 because they couldn't have sex without being married. It actually wasn't that long ago.

Thank God, I think they are pernicious, amoral nonsense that drains the life of the nation

Oh I soooo agree. I think they are morally regressive, depict awful ways of behaving and communicating in relationships (shouty, screams) and EE especially is classist - depicts working class people in very stereotypical ways. Teens are depicted as the worst all.the.time.

I stopped watching 12 years ago and once you stop it all looks ridiculous.

All the soaps have a treasure chest of vintage episodes to exploit

I'm seriously enjoying Classic Corrie on ITV3

I only watch Eastenders, but I know it’s a load of old rubbish. I’m sure I only persevere because of the long-running Eastenders discussion/critique thread, which I’ve dipped in and out of for years.

I watched EE from the first show and hung in there for years. I dipped in and out of Corrie (my Mum and Nan both watched Corrie).

Until I just stopped watching EE one day a couple of years ago - totally bored with it. Haven't dipped into Corrie for the same length of time.

I think my viewing habits have really changed with Netflix and all the on demand stuff.

I can't imagine ever going back to watching soaps.

Soaps are on too often now. I can watch on a Friday, and effectively follow the stories for the entire week with just one episode.

Eastenders got ridiculous when they brought Dirty Den back from the dead and continued to watch Corrie and Emmerdale when DC were young but haven't watched in years now.

They are poorly written and acted and there are very few characters you actually care about unlike the Corrie of old, I watch the odd episode of Corrie which is currently showing episodes from 1989 on ITV3 and it's far superior to today's issue led nonsense.