Welcome to the sixth in a series of 10 posts, written for a university assignment last year (I write this disclaimer in Nov 19), which required blogging about current issues in television. As a result, the material is rather dated/irrelevant now, and the tone a little more formal than I prefer, but I thought I'd publish it on here anyway as I put a lot of work into it. I hope you enjoy/find it insightful!...
28/01/19
When I tell people about my love for soap operas, they often remark at how they cannot believe they are still on air in this day and age, and how they still remain so popular despite online streaming and other new changes in the television industry. Whilst they raise a fair point, they also somewhat demonstrate the fall in fondness for public service broadcasting in recent years. With so many channels now available, it is unsurprising that the traditional BBC ethos to educate, inform and entertain, along with the requirements that accompany this, seem rather outdated and unimportant. But, how do soaps confront this shift in attitude?
Sir John Reith, founder of the BBC and one of the main figures who helped to establish the definition of British public service broadcasting (Anon, year unknown).
As explored in my post ‘A Sobering Christmas Message’, soaps still retain high audience shares and remain one of the most popular genres on TV despite online streaming competition. I think it is safe to say that soaps play an instrumental part in keeping public service television, and broadcast television in general, alive.
My reasoning for this belief is that soaps seem to make up part of the basic framework of the television schedule in the UK: they are the stalwart, un-moving foundations upon which other television shows rely in order to stay running. Let’s take a look at why:
Soaps air at an awkward time of day - dinner time. This is a slot in which viewers expect something more engaging than the factual and lifestyle programmes that air during the day, but also do not wish to have to pay much attention to a programme in order to enjoy it. It’s a time to wind down after work, prepare food or get children ready for bed. Soaps manage to fulfil all these criteria: they are entertaining and dramatic, but if you miss the odd episode or scene here and there, it is easy to catch-up due to the continuous and repetitive nature of soaps. No other fiction genre could boast this ability.
They air at the same time almost every day, so other evening programmes are scheduled around them. Viewers become familiar with the conventions of the TV schedule due to the unchanging time slots of the soaps, which helps to create a distinction from the disorder of online streaming.
They are cheap to produce, which means that, in the BBC’s case, more licence fee money can go towards other programmes whilst still providing constant, quality drama via EastEnders.
The soaps help to contribute to the identity of a channel. For example, EastEnders has a gritty, kitchen-sink drama reputation, which helps BBC One’s prime time dramas to tap into an audience who expect this type of content. Coronation Street and Emmerdale are known for being slower-paced, with a touch of comedy and heart, which makes for a more light-hearted reputation for ITV - fitting in well with their weekday line-up of quiz and entertainment shows. Hollyoaks appeals to a younger audience and operates very differently from the other soaps (see blog post 5) and this reflects the way that Channel 4 operates on a whole. Thus, the soaps help to justify individual channel’s places on the TV guide.
As aforementioned, no other genre of programme would likely work in the soap time slots. Imagine if EastEnders were cancelled in favour of daily hour-long editions of The One Show? It just wouldn’t feel right. There would be nothing to bridge the gap between light-hearted daytime magazine and variety shows and prime time, post-watershed dramas. Soaps help to draw in evening viewers for a channel as they whet their appetites for a 9pm drama.
Soaps appeal to the masses by featuring characters of all ages and backgrounds, and storylines which aim to reflect modern Britain. In terms of EastEnders, this falls nicely in line with the BBC’s aims as a public service broadcaster. Therefore, soaps are a cheap way to for broadcasters to appeal to a wide audience and argue relevancy.
A screencap from the Telegraph's TV Guide for Monday 28/01/19. Soaps are in green, factual programmes are in blue and general entertainment programmes are in red. Clearly, soaps are the only shows in the immediate run-up to the watershed that provide a large amount of drama output.
Taking all these points into consideration, I truly believe that soaps are vital to keeping traditional television alive, and also demonstrate the power and importance of traditional and public service broadcasting. Without them, I would predict that conventional television would suffer greatly.
However, as soaps seem to remain through thick and thin, and as they make up such a long-standing and imperative genre, I do not see any of them being cancelled any time soon. Consequently, I think the future of public service and traditional broadcasting is still assured and safe, despite online competition. As I have found when writing this blog, I am of the opinion that studying the soaps is an invaluable way to measure the future of television as whole, and that this further demonstrates the significance of soaps in our TV schedules, especially in a time where current issues bring into question the entire definition of television.
-ASIS
Yorumlar