Members MarkH Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 I was pointed here by the remarkable Roger Newcomb (who was behind the recent Nuke protest media campaign) and his welovesoaps.blogspot.com site Source http://www.bostonherald.com/business/media...13&srvc=rss Key concept: - dwindling audience, it's do or die time - says CBS is streaming all 4 soaps, ABC is repurposing on Soapnet and NBC is contemplating going soapless - talks about the Leap Day change at GL, to cut production costs, leading to instant edits and tighter closeups...also mentions introduction of CGI at GH - CBS' Barbara Bloom has no idea where the genre will go in 10 years - says daytime is alive because of its' loyal (older) fan base - ABC claims it is making substantive ("core black family" at AMC) and not cosmetic changes. - says minority viewers will be loyal, but only if they have characters with whom they identify "Frons says SoapNet is an important part of the future of daytime serials. Its current business model as the sole home of same-day episodes of daytime dramas isn’t profitable enough and will likely evolve." - Frons also thinks that 10 years from now it's going to be soaps on the web and on phones...you'll be watching on a computer or portable device during lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sheilaforever Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 What does Frons mean? SoapNet is not profitable enough to solely pay for the ABC soaps? I just wonder because SoapNet can't make any losses with rebroadcasting o existing programming from the mother company. Except for their craptastic original series SoapNet has zero costs besides a cheque to SONY for DAYS and Y&R... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 I think the best way for Soapnet to bring in money would be to get rid of those silly SNMS (Sunday Night Movies) in favor of more popular soap opera (possibly take off one or two of the primetime series they show) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted March 10, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 I think a network costs a fair bit of personnel, energy, transmission, marketing, cable licensing, etc. costs. If you look at the advertisers on Soapnet, many of them are more "infomercial grade" (as opposed to major national advertisers). So if you have low-rent advertisers with a small number of eyeballs, it really might not generate enough to keep up the costs. Also, couldn't you imagine Disney doing something like charging SoapNet with half the production costs for the ABC soaps? If yes, that makes it even harder to turn a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 Yeah, the cycle will make a full circle trip back to short broadcasts like the days of soaps on radio. Just imagine casts being pared down and pet characters being even more prominent than they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sheilaforever Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 There is no personnel needed, that's my point. SoapNet should have verrrrry little costs which should get paid by revenues for the primetime marathons when SoapNet actually scores big with viewers. But you pointed out exactly what I thought of: ABC demanding hefty licensing fees for its soaps even though it remains inside the family... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cat Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 I don't know if I could EVER watch a soap on my tiny-ass cell phone. However, watching them on my computer during lunch? I've certainly done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LeClerc Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 Well Frons' comments are depressing. Love him or hate him (okay, so we all fall into the second camp) Frons has been one of daytime's biggest cheerleaders. He was always out there trying to paint a prettier picture of their future, he has tried to revamp the daytime emmy telecast and give it some dignity, he is always giving interviews...okay so part of that is his ego and he loves to see his name in print, but I think in his mind he is trying to show that he's an exec who is passionate about the genre. Don't get me wrong I still think Frons is utterly clueless. I'm just saying these comments are a real departure from his past comments. IMO he's bascially saying "these shows are done, it's just a matter of time". And he may have felt that way all along but he didn't state so in public. And I don't see Frons ever being replaced now. ABC probably doesn't see any use in getting someone new in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cat Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 Everybody talks about "what's wrong with the genre." There's nothing wrong with the genre! 90% of al Primetime shows (including comedies and reality TV) are soaps in wolves' clothing. Hello, the Hills? Brothers & Sisters? DH? Even 3rd Rock has soapy elements. The problem, as we all well know, is the writing. And the ratings. Because, duh, people are usually out working between 12.30-4pm. If they moved the daypart to 4.30-8pm, ratings would increase. If Y&R, GH and Days were all on at 7pm the ratings would be higher. People coming home from work... cooking... finishing up homework. Turn on the TV for some escapism ahead of the 8pm Primetime surge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MTSRocks Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 ^^^Eureka! I think she's got it! It's all in the writing folks. I wonder how some of these writers can even take themselves seriously. Do they actually find the [!@#$%^&*] that there dishing out to be entertaining? Obviously creativity is not there strong suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sheilaforever Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 About cell phones as the future of soaps: First, who wants to watch sth. on such a small display? Second, it's not exactly like the US (except for NYC) are a country where comuting is the job of public transportation. So where should I watch 60 minutes of soap on my teenie tinsle cell phone display??? At home - so that my Tiva has a day off!? I could see myself watching (or rather hearing) news on my cell but nothing scripted. Internet streaming is totally different; it works, is easy to handle (if you don't use CBS Innertube) and just nice. I don't have any television set this month and am only keeping up via the various streaming services... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members skiman12082004 Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 That article made things seem so dire. I love watching my soaps on TV. The internet is okay, but not as the only way of watching the soaps. Passions has been avaliable to me via the internet since it left NBC and it is not the same. Shows like Y&R and B&B which are getting higher ratings than some of the nighttime shows are not going anywhere in the forseeable future IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members P.J. Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 I think the key phrase is "not profitable ENOUGH". Not profitable, period, but underperforming in Frons' mind. It's probably more profitable to put your episodes on your website, and sell the advertising viewers can't fast forward through than to put stuff on a separate network. I can't imagine how anyone would be so desperate to see anything they'd watch it daily over their phone. EVER. I watch on the computer when I've missed something due to news interruptions, but regular viewing? No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted March 10, 2008 Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 I completely agree PJ I dunno, I read that someone new was brought in under Frons(not for ABCDaytime, but I think for Soapnet) and I get the feeling this person is reporting back to Sweeney about Frons, no way can his bosses be happy ABC Daytime has lost over a million viewers in a year, and what he's doing to Soapnet, especially with those Sunday Night Movies is stupid. This is SOAPnet NOT A Movie Channel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted March 10, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 10, 2008 You know where I think that small screen can work? When you're at the gym on the treadmill. You can keep that device pretty close, and with the earbuds it's a pretty intimate little viewing system. I'm not saying it is optimal, but I think it works. Does anyone watch Ipod videos regularly? How does that work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.