I was just going to say this. There's many factors that led to the failure of new soaps in the 80s/90s. A major one was the handling of new soaps by affiliates. We know how networks and affiliates ended up killing established soaps with schedule changes or moves to graveyard slots, but the same was true for new soaps. Santa Barabra was poorly treated by affiliates once ratings didn't prove to be to their liking. This among other reasons led to its demise.
Competing against establish soaps. Another issue with new soaps in the 80s and 90s is that many times these new shows were seen as the solution to another failing show. The majority of new soaps in the 80s and 90s were essentially time slot replacements for already poor performing soaps. The expectation is that these new soaps will save the timeslot and do it quickly which with soaps is not the case. Another issue with this is that the slots these soaps were expected to replace were already hosting a lower rated offering, which is also schedule against major competition thus giving the soap little room to attract an audience. To use Santa Barbara again, it was scheduled up against GL and GH which were both performing well in 83. SB was supposed to pull in a young audience all the while competing directly with two major 80s soaps. Even still Santa Barbara did okay and was widely popular overseas. Who is to say how it would have faired in a better slot. To add to this, the traditional soap audience was decreasing steadily since the 70s as more married women were joining the workforce instead of becoming housewives. So audiences weren't growing, but the expectation was that these soaps would somehow attract the 18-49 demo, the primary audience decreasing. I don't know if networks thought there was some kind of plethora of housewives that they could attract or if they thought their new soaps with steal audiences from the competition.
Expensive. Soaps in the 80s and early 90s were up against quite some major productions in soaps hey days. Soaps are an expensive investment and networks weren't shelling out big budgets to underperforming soaps. While new soaps in the 80s did get a nice budget in advance to launch, when numbers weren't up to par, those budgets were drastically cut and they still were expected to compete with the likes of soaps now doing major location shoots, building insane sets for minor action storylines, and just overall grandiose production values. (This was also true for failing soaps - many of the underperforming soaps were put under extreme stress often having budgets cut drastically while also expected to increase ratings in a short period of time while working under new restraints. Not realistic)
Emotional attachment. As already mentioned, soaps are based on attachment. We grow to connect with these characters so deeply because we are invested. We watch them everyday and have seen them go through every trial and tribulation. Creating this attachment takes time, hence the previous expense/budget is key. A new soap isn't going to lure viewers based on familiarity so they needed to appeal in appearance/production but without a budget comparable to the competition.
Competition. In the 80s and 90s, talk shows boomed. Audiences tuned into these shoes that often exposed the outrageous lives of real people. Also, the 90s saw the growth of major competition from cable networks.
And to add. The new soaps of the 80s and 90s were all meant to attract this ever decreasing 18-49 demo which ultimately alienated a large group of soap viewers.
I mentioned this on the 90s Ratings thread in the Cancelled Soaps group. Even as early as 1990 (three years into its run), B&B was hitting Top 5 in overall households, sometimes getting as high as #3 in 1991. And this was way before Sheila even crossed over from Y&R (incidentally 1990 was when that storyline was just starting on Y&R).