Jump to content


Welcome! Please take a second to register.


Photo

How Did P&G Lose Its Way?


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 Max

Max

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,168 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 02:10 AM

The demise of the once mighty P&G soap empire is absolutely staggering when one thinks about it. In modern American business, I can think of few other examples of the once #1 player in the industry experiencing such a reversal of fortune aside from (1) the near collapse of General Motors a few years ago and (2) last year's Chapter 11 Bankruptcy filing on the part of A&P (which was once America's pre-eminent supermarket chain).

In hindsight, it seemed as if P&G really panicked in the late-70's after they lost their dominance to ABC and Y&R. In response, TPTB decimated many of the core characters and families of their shows in an effort to chase after a young demographic. In the process, of course, all that really happened was that the traditional viewers of P&G soaps left their shows in droves (due to the fact that P&G was not true to the essence of its product).

What really perplexes me is that P&G still has this reputation for being the greatest marketing company of all-time. If this is the case, however, why was the company content to let iconic brands like GL and ATWT just die without a fight? (This would be the equivalent of P&G deciding to all of a sudden dispose of Tide, Crest, Ivory, or Pampers.) What pisses me off the most is that P&G didn't do a damn thing to try and save their soaps at the very end. Contrast this to ABC (which has received so much more wrath from fans than P&G ever has), which is an organization that did a lot more to save their soaps. I just do not get it.
  • 0

#2 DRW50

DRW50

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 53,720 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 02:18 AM

I would say greed was what first started it. They gutted EON because they wanted all their soaps in a block. If they hadn't done that EON might still be around today.
  • 0

#3 sungrey

sungrey

    Longing for a return to the old DAYS.

  • Members
  • 1,384 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 02:26 AM

I agree 100 percent. Edge was a show that killed its competition at 3:30. One Life to Live got decent ratings, yes, but an example of how dominant CBS was in that slot could be found with how NBC did following You Don't Say's ill-advised cancellation in 1969. NBC had to put three different shows in the slot before finally relenting and expanding AW to 60 minutes.

You could argue if NBC had put Somerset at 3:30, following AW, the show may have succeeded. But the rule back then, I believe, was no P&G soaps could air opposite each other.

Why would you take the number 2 soap in the country and switch its time period? Like many people have said, Edge caught a lot of viewers because of its time slot. Men home from work early were drawn to the action stories. Teenagers and younger viewers out of college classes could watch it because they got home from school.

The damn thing that's funny in all of this? You'd think P&G would have learned its lesson... but they did the same damn thing nearly 10 years later to Search for Tomorrow and all but killed it.
  • 0

#4 DRW50

DRW50

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 53,720 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 02:46 AM

I also think someone at P&G just stopped caring. By the late 90's it was more and more blatant. They just let their soaps die. My guess is someone new or hip may have come in and been ashamed and felt this was an old faded product. Yet they wanted to make sure their products would never live on, and blocked this idea at every turn.
  • 0

#5 EastMA2

EastMA2

    Contract

  • Members
  • 693 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 07:04 AM

Mickey Dwyer Dobbin was well known to spend so little time in the studios when she was in charge of the P&G shows. She seemed to always be on a cruise or on a yacht somewhere only to make an occasional appearance to give quotes like Michael Zaslow being a wizened old man who didn't have a place at GL. She didn't help the P&G shows at all.
  • 0

#6 aMLCproduction

aMLCproduction

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,902 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 07:19 AM

Very good Topic. Should we do one for the ABC soaps.

There are or were just three main players in the soap game, P&G, ABC, and Sony
  • 0

#7 Kyle

Kyle

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 6,024 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 07:24 AM

Easy for ABC: Brian Frons.
  • 0

#8 aMLCproduction

aMLCproduction

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,902 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 07:25 AM

Easy for ABC: Brian Frons.


That's too easy
  • 0

#9 DRW50

DRW50

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 53,720 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 07:32 AM


Mickey Dwyer Dobbin was well known to spend so little time in the studios when she was in charge of the P&G shows. She seemed to always be on a cruise or on a yacht somewhere
only to make an occasional appearance to give quotes like Michael Zaslow being a wizened old man who didn't have a place at GL. She didn't help the P&G shows at all.


I didn't know that.

This is just pathetic. I thought she had a good track record at ABC. But then, the desperate attempts to ABC the P&G shows, especially ATWT, was another nail in the coffin.

Edited by CarlD2, 21 July 2011 - 07:32 AM.

  • 0

#10 scherra

scherra

    Dayplayer

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 10:27 AM

I also think someone at P&G just stopped caring. By the late 90's it was more and more blatant. They just let their soaps die. My guess is someone new or hip may have come in and been ashamed and felt this was an old faded product. Yet they wanted to make sure their products would never live on, and blocked this idea at every turn.


re: 'someone at P&G just stopped caring':

I think that became obvious when Ed Trach retired, Ken Fitts came on board, then MADD took over. I remember some of the gossip mid-1990s pointing at Ken Fitts as one of the core problems, as an exec who could have cared less about the P&G soaps (unlike Ed Trach). And I think that was also strongly hinted in the press hailing MADD's arrival and rolling out the red carpet. They figured surely she'd be a strong voice who'd fight for the shows as she seems to have done for ABC Daytime. She certainly was a visible presence--I remember an extensive Q&A session with the fans in 1996 back when TV Guide had boards--but in the end, her ideas and decisions didn't serve the shows' best interests.
  • 0

#11 Mitch

Mitch

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,197 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 11:48 AM

Sometimes I actually think that MADD was brought on to end the shows, and they offered her a big golden parachute to just keep running them and slowly siphon off the audience, until nobody cared anymore, or at least a small portion of the audience would be left and would not hurt PG's bottom line.

Agreed, the end started in the late 70's when P&G tried to get rid of the shows identies in an effort to modernize their shows. However, can you blame them, for the first time in 20 years their flagship soap, ATWT fell from number 1, and fell big, I think with the Dobsons there it was no 7 in the ratings..(would love to see ratings from that time from when ATWT started slipping) ATWT went from carrying CBS to Y & R doing it, and General Hospital shot to number 1, and all the sudden attention focused on soaps from main stream press, and the soap press going on about how Nixon and others were being "relevant," and youth full as opposed to the traditional soaps, I can see them jumping the gun. Unfortunatley they went about it the wrong way.

I would argue that ATWT badly needed to be updated, when the Dobson's got there the whole show was full of middle aged people (I remember Colleen Zenk gave an interview that at 25 she was the youngest contract cast member) and some stories, like Grant/Lisa was going on and on and on (cant figure out why the Dobson's choose to continue on with that.) They just threw the baby out with the bathwater...ATWT could have been updated and not lost its identity at all, just like all the rest of the P & G soaps did (I think Edge fared better as it was not a traditional soap the updating didnt seem as disjointed.)
  • 0

#12 DRW50

DRW50

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 53,720 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 12:00 PM

I always end up thinking of the stories that went on for years and years about how P&G wanted rid of AW. Looking back now I am amazed it stayed on as long as it did. I wonder how much of it was down to NBC still wanting to try.
  • 0

#13 Gray Bunny

Gray Bunny

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 3,718 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 02:24 PM

I think we should make a list of which P&G shows could/should have lived on longer had P&G and/or CBS not interfered with timeslots that were already proven to be working... Some of you more savvy soapers can list 'em better. The two that come to mind first are when they switched The Edge of Night from its late-afternoon timeslot in order to put all P&G shows in a block together. The other one is moving Search for Tomorrow from its lunchtime timeslot.

Also, although Love of Life wasn't a P&G soap, didn't a timeslot change also seal its fate, too?

Edited by Gray Bunny, 21 July 2011 - 02:24 PM.

  • 0

#14 soapfan770

soapfan770

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,338 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 08:53 PM

I'd always like to know what Kenneth L. Fitts and others at P&G were thinking when they decided to flip around management for the three shows there in 1995. Such an epic failure, Fitts and everyone else was fired a year later.

Edited by soapfan770, 21 July 2011 - 08:53 PM.

  • 0

#15 Eric83

Eric83

    SLAYONCE

  • Members
  • 9,325 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 09:17 PM

Also, although Love of Life wasn't a P&G soap, didn't a timeslot change also seal its fate, too?

Yes. CBS moved Love of Life to 4pm in April 1979. Didn't even last a year after the timeslot switch.
  • 0

#16 Paul Raven

Paul Raven

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 3,943 posts

Posted 22 July 2011 - 03:49 AM

The rise of the ABC soaps seemed to completely unbalance P&G.

First up AW drops from #2 to #8 in a matter of months,ATWT loses it's 20 yr status as the #1 show. Their big new hope with Lovers and Friends is a disaster and the revamp FRFP does no better.SFT begins to soften.

Only GL weathers the storm. Texas flops and EON suffers from not benefitting from the ABC rise.

I can imagine there would have been a behind the scenes panic.What had been working for years no longer applied.They needed a new direction-but what?

What do posters think P&G should have done in the face of it all?
  • 0

#17 DRW50

DRW50

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 53,720 posts

Posted 22 July 2011 - 03:56 AM

I never would have approved a second Lemay/Rauch show. If Lemay had left due to this being turned down, as he may have done, then so be it, as he ended up leaving anyway. I also would have worked very very hard to keep the Matthews family front and center and expand the family.

I would have had more faith in the tenets of Search for Tomorrow and focused on them instead of overusing some of the younger people and bringing in too many new characters. They seemed to have a good thing going around 1979 or 1980 but then it all fell apart.

I never would have approved Texas at that point in time. I never would have gone with a 90 minute expansion of AW.

I don't really know what to say about ATWT, but I would have kept Susan (was it Marie's choice to leave?). I wouldn't have killed off Dan, although I might have written him out. I would have kept Don Hughes around and made an effort to bring Penny back as well, along with Amy. I would have possibly given her another daughter as well for the type of "young love" stories that the soaps were pushing at that time.
  • 0

#18 Mitch

Mitch

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,197 posts

Posted 22 July 2011 - 10:08 AM

I never would have approved a second Lemay/Rauch show. If Lemay had left due to this being turned down, as he may have done, then so be it, as he ended up leaving anyway. I also would have worked very very hard to keep the Matthews family front and center and expand the family.

I would have had more faith in the tenets of Search for Tomorrow and focused on them instead of overusing some of the younger people and bringing in too many new characters. They seemed to have a good thing going around 1979 or 1980 but then it all fell apart.

I never would have approved Texas at that point in time. I never would have gone with a 90 minute expansion of AW.

I don't really know what to say about ATWT, but I would have kept Susan (was it Marie's choice to leave?). I wouldn't have killed off Dan, although I might have written him out. I would have kept Don Hughes around and made an effort to bring Penny back as well, along with Amy. I would have possibly given her another daughter as well for the type of "young love" stories that the soaps were pushing at that time.



ATWT badly needed updating, but not to the extent that the core was ripped out. I can see having Dan die...where were he and Kim to go after that? (and of course, it paved the way to Bob and Kim which we all knew should happen) Focusing on the Stewarts younger daughters helped to youthify that family and also, got Bruder playing closer to her own age. The obscuration of the Hughes was the worst part of the change. I would have kept Don, but maybe killed Mary off and had him turn darker (he was always more shady ) to give the Hughes some tension within (always thought they should have done the same with bringing back a son for Ed and Rita who was a bad apple and caused tension in the family.) He and Bob could have clashed with Nancy and Chris disapproving of his antics (when they broke David and Ellen up a few years later I thought it should have been Don who dated her, instead of some nobody doctor.) I would have also brought in the farm family relatives of Chris, maybe had Chris' brothers grand daughter come to live with Chris and Nancy, everyone thinks she is sweet farm girl but she is really a conniving social climber ala Lisa. Bringing in Scott Eldridge early at this point, with the Hughes hootchie chasing after him, causing Lisa and Nancy to butt heads, etc.) ATWT at that time was coasting on its past success, and it needed a jolt. I guess I would just shake up the core instead of ripping it apart.
  • 0

#19 DRW50

DRW50

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 53,720 posts

Posted 22 July 2011 - 10:14 AM

I wouldn't have killed Dan mostly because it's very final and I think that type of thing slaps viewers in the face, especially since they never really got to play out the story of Betsy learning she was his daughter (didn't she learn this right before he died?). I think they could have brought in a Nick Andropolous type character, if that's what they felt was needed, to tempt Kim away from a dull life she thought she wanted but quickly grew to resent.

I definitely wish they'd brought in the bad seed brother of Chris. I think bringing Edith Hughes back might have been interesting too. What if she brought out Nancy's insecurities, perhaps made a play for David, encouraged Lisa to return to some of her more wicked ways.
  • 0

#20 Mitch

Mitch

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,197 posts

Posted 22 July 2011 - 11:36 AM

I wouldn't have killed Dan mostly because it's very final and I think that type of thing slaps viewers in the face, especially since they never really got to play out the story of Betsy learning she was his daughter (didn't she learn this right before he died?). I think they could have brought in a Nick Andropolous type character, if that's what they felt was needed, to tempt Kim away from a dull life she thought she wanted but quickly grew to resent.

I definitely wish they'd brought in the bad seed brother of Chris. I think bringing Edith Hughes back might have been interesting too. What if she brought out Nancy's insecurities, perhaps made a play for David, encouraged Lisa to return to some of her more wicked ways.



I think at that point and time bringing in "old," characters like Chris' sibligns were out of the question, as they werent even utilizing Chris and Nancy as patriarch and matriach of the show. Always wonder if that was a Dobson decision or PG, as they were brought back four years later and restored to their proper positions (I loved the costume party Lisa had, and Nancy and Chris came as George and Martha Washington.) The Hughes suffered in that time frame as they didnt have any "younger," relatives to play..Tom was aged to his 30's and Frannie was still a little girl. The Stewarts had Betsy and Dee and Annie so they were fine. I wonder why Irna didnt write it more kids for Bob and some kids for Don, to extend the family.

I also wonder why they didnt simply bring in another branch of the Bauers on GL. Bill Bauer had another son who was never seen, Hope was off screen so long she could have married several times and had several children, as Mike Bauer could have.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users