GLATWT88

I also feel that NBC was a bit heavy handed when the cancelations of some of its soaps. I believe it was so desperately trying to be competitive that if a soap wasn't a breakout hit, it would get the chop.

From the ABC station in NY. 20 million watched day 1. A 47 share in NYC and a 64 share in Chicago.

Wow! What a moment. Those numbers are incredible.

I'm not sure, but considering SFT was canceled over at CBS with better ratings than the entire NBC lineup, perhaps execs hoped SFT could prop up their numbers by bringing viewers over. Something that clearly didn't happen. They should have moved Texas to noon. It was never going to establish itself against GH and GL. It would have at least given it a half hour lead when no direct competition.

NY aired it at 4 until the end of its run.

Honestly, it's not that bad all things considered. Definitely doesn't have the same impact compared to the ATWT scene, but the did okay for what they've got. I would have expected a lot worse from soaps these days. Unfortunately, this is what we have to accept.

I wonder how EON would have faired if given a fair shot by affiliates. Considering how successful the rest of the ABC lineup was and GH being it's lead-in, it had all the makings of being a success. I know on the west coast, it apparently aired at noon, so did not have the same advantage. Unfortunately with many networks choosing to preempt, it just never had a chance. The timeslot move on CBS really did some damage, but IMO it could have been saved at ABC. I wonder how EON and Capitol (CBS) would have done in the 90s considering the rise of procedural dramas in primetime since then. Would have been interesting to see what direction EON would have taken.

When these outdoor scenes look better than anything Peapack did a decade later, it was bound to fail. Even when it got better, the Peapack stuff still looked like college kids that filmed something for their TV production class.

I have a question for longtime viewers. It seems like every soap by the 90s had established some sort of leading lady type or face of the show that you would easily recognize or associate with said soap...Erica -AMC, Marlena - DAYS, Vicky - OLTL, etc. While these ladies are usually beloved, Reva seems to be the most controversial. What is it about the character that makes this so? I know that Reva came on as GL was going through a massive change especially in characters. She's probably the newest of said leading ladies as most were part of their soaps for a lot longer.

Everyone suffering the consequences of the ABC dominance. I'm impressed by how steady GL is holding considering it is in direct competition with GH.

In Feb. during its transition to one hour episodes, it was head to head with AMC from 1-2pm. In June, it shifted to an earlier start time of 12:30, putting it up against the low-rating Doctors at the time and Ryan's Hope which was performing reasonably but not at the height of the rest of the ABC lineup. This half hour lead might have been an advantage to YR. I would be curious to see what the half hour ratings for YR would be at this time.

I was not a fan of the Peter Richard's story either and it largely had to do with CA in the role. I completely agree that he lacked chemistry with both Linda and Charlene. I loved the direction it was headed with Sue Ellen feeling conflicted about the age difference, Peter's friends at the restaurant thinking Sue Ellen was his mom, Peter being involved in the life of her son. It had great elements that could have produced some intense drama, but CA was just creepy. He just looked like a boy. I wish they would have cast someone a bit more manly and rugged. I know times have changed and beauty standards but he just looks scrawny and that lipless smile and limp blond hair do nothing. Not to mention his personality was lame too. I'm sure they didn't want to push the envelope too much at the time, but it would have really been more effective if we did see a lot more passion and an actual love scene between the pair as well.

No one was competing with AMC, OLTL, and GH that summer. It was a good move for YR not to be scheduled completely in direct competition to any of these three soaps.

Any time period in specific you can recommend for the Curlee era. I might do a revisit as I have some time. Funny you made that comparison to GH, as I was just thinking the same thing today. GH is getting Peapack numbers currently but with lower demos, but it visually looks pretty impressive all considered. Granted, this is 2023 vs 2008/9...so not a fair comparison. GH getting just over 2 million viewers, 15 years after GL was doing those same numbers isn't too bad. Also, I wonder if delayed viewing is also helping. I wish there was more transparency with these numbers. Another factor may be the steady decline in viewership across daytime and primetime which may have made networks a little more generous with budgets especially with soaps which bring a consistent number of viewers daily.

That seems about right. I would assume that ATWT would be moved to the 10am slot in some markets like NYC, as GL had already moved from its 3pm slot. I would be very curious to see how BB would have performed at 1 hour runtime. While, household numbers were strong in 97, BB's demos were mediocre. It consistently underperformed the ABC soaps, YR, and Days which was dominated the 18-49 demo that year. There were several weeks where GL outperformed BB in the demo in 97 and other weeks they were pretty much on par. Aside from stronger viewership, I'm not sure why they would want to expand BB at the time. Although, BB may have been doing better in 95 and 96, which I would have to check. Nonetheless, the issue with the CBS soaps at the time was that they skewed older. ATWT, GL, and BB were usually at the bottom half of the demo rankings. I am curious how a full hour of BB would fair against DAYS. I think a younger, fresher soap would have been in the works. I don't know what that would look like in 1997 - we got Port Charles and Sunset Beach which were supposed to be the answer to that. Maybe SuBe's numbers made CBS hesitant.

Wow, that's pretty amazing. I wish they had a streaming platform for soaps. Not sure why some of these companies are so protective of this old content, removing it from YT or pulling it down from other sources. Let's be honest, old soap episodes are not lucrative. It would be great if there was even a network like Retro, MeTV, Buzzr (old game shows) that would just air old soap opera episodes.

Oh freaky! I posted something very similar to this in the CBS Daytime thread.

The best move would have been for Edge to go to NBC and placed right after AW. It may have prevented AW's expansion - solving another NBC catastrophe. EON was an established soap, AW's lead in would have been good for Edge as AW's numbers were strong at the time of EON's transition. The most important factor would be clearance, but NBC seemed pretty good at that. Even low rated Texas and Doctors maintained strong clearance in spite of their numbers unlike soaps on the other networks.

That's surprising and would have ended in disaster most likely. All soaps had been losing ground since the mid 1980s. A new soap wasn't going to solve the issues which led to these decreases. I always say that it's a testament to GL's quality that it performed so well in the late 70s and early 80s up against GH's peak. It was a very consistent soap from 71 - 84, maintaining a steady rating in the 8s (and obviously it was wildly successful in the 50s and 60s but those were different times and conditions). To maintain in the Top 5 soaps during GH's strongest years and with insane numbers is truly incredible. It wasn't until 84/5 that the numbers took a drop, but this is true for the soaps in general. Just as the 1984/5 season was the peak for primetime soaps, I believe it to be the peak for daytime soaps as well. 1984 was also the peak of daytime revenue in ad sales. There was a steady decrease for the rest of the decade, in sales and viewership. In fact in 1994 and 1995, there were weeks where GL was still beating both ATWT and BB in the demo. While the numbers for GL dipped in the mid 80s. From 1985 - 1994, it was a very middle performing soap. It wasn't performing at the bottom and wasn't too far off other more established soaps. It wasn't AW or RH. It also shows what good writing could do that GL jumped .4 rating from 90/91 to 91/92 season. Furthermore, YR and BB were rare cases in the soap world. Of all the soaps to debut in the 1970s - 90s, only AMC, RH, YR and BB experienced much success. The rest pretty much stayed at the bottom of the ratings. One other exception which I personally feel performed well was Capitol and it wasn't given much a shot, but its success could have come down to scheduling (same could be said for BB). I am a firm believer that scheduling was a huge factor in the success and demise of soaps in the 1970s and 1980s. Also, SB had a bit of success, but it never left the bottom either. While I think investing in the quality and rejuvenation of the soaps was a good idea, and probably thanks to Bell not taking the offer, I don't think CBS went about it in the right way. I definitely don't think replacing GL and ATWT would have ended up getting CBS what it wanted as the truth was that the numbers just wouldn't be there for a new soap in the 90s. We saw it for The City, PC, SuBe, Passions. Not only did GL have to suffer through preemptions due to OJ in 1995. It also had to contend with a 10am timeslot move in major markets.

No, there was no change at all. By the 2000s stunt casting wasn't going to save a soap. Even two years later when Joan Van Ark joined YR, it didn't make a dent. I agree. Somewhere around 2005 things just changed. A lot of familiar faces would leave and the show just felt different. The end was inevitable. The numbers just weren't there and they weren't coming back, but maybe the should have let the show wrap up with a bit more dignity.

@dc11786 when did you stop watching? It's wild how so many things changed or were scrapped because of the cuts. I do remember a lot of cast changes around 2005 and the show did unfortunately begin to feel different. I remember taking a break mid-2006 for a few months, not because I wasn't enjoying it, but I just had too much going on. When I finally did come back the show just felt so different. Then when Peapack happened, I just couldn't take seeing what happened to the production value. I know some people say it got better, but it was so hard to watch at first.

Thank you!!!

Do we have any actual figures in regard to these cuts. I know visually the show looked "cheaper" after this, but it was still okay. I rewatched some 2003 episodes and I'm surprised by the sets and extras...2005 definitely reeled that in.

@dc11786 @Donna L. Bridges 😂 at the tapes. Nowadays, shows almost hope you have tapes to generate some attention on social media. I enjoyed the younger scene around that time too, like Sandy, Tammy, Marina... Jonathan didn't sit well with me. I know that he got a lot of recognition, but Tom Phelphry's acting and interpretation of the character was really obnoxious to me. Maybe that's what he was going for, but it was so manic at times.

Now that you mention it, the setup definitely had a Three's Company feel.