Jump to content

Michael Logan's Rant on SOAPnet


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Is SN Sick of Soaps?

Disney-ABC created SN as a showcase for daytime soap repeats, but they're getting harder and harder to find. The weekend AMC mrathon has been canceled - such a fis to that landmark show - and the cable channel is now a dumping ground for old movies, some of them tangentially soappy ("Mommie Dearest") but most with no suds connection at all ("Clue", "Down and Out in Beverly Hills"). There 's also been a campaign to broaden the concept of "soap" with E!-style rip off shows like Relative Miadness, which looked at Dina Lohan, Heather Mills and other showbiz train wrecks. Those swell Another World reruns vanished, but Beverly Hills 90210, airs 16 times a week. ABC also uses the channel to plug its prime time lineup; withness the 10 hour Dirty Sexy Money marathon (9/27). What gives? Who knows? A SN publicist veoted my request for an interview about the changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

SOW addresses the same thing in the latest issue.

They asked a SOAPnet spokesperson about it who responded:

"The soaps are very important to SOAPnet and we offer them three times a day, Monday to Friday. When it comes to the weekend marathons, we have made scheduling changes to respond to the behavior of the SOAPnet viewers. The vast majority of our viewers watch the soaps when they broadcast or Monday to Friday on SOAPnet. They can't wait for the weekend to see their shows. This upcoming weekend, Saturday Sept 27, SOAPnet will be airing a Dirty Sexy Marathon of the 10 episodes from the first season, from 9am to 7pm"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hello all. I just have one thing to say about SNs: they're lying. I cannot think of a single person who wants to watch Maniquin even once more-or any of the other B movies they've slapped on us. Relative Madness is about as entertaining as a wet dishrag. It's all just more Frons koolaid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No, I do not think Soapnet is lying. MONEY (ratings and demographics) determines what Soapnet does. What they are saying ("respond to the behavior") is that the ratings TANK on the weekends. They cannot run unprofitable shows and stay in business. Relative Madness is cancelled, I think...so that is a non-starter. Yes, I strongly believe that Mannequin outrates soaps. I don't doubt it for a second. Why? Because casual viewers will browse and stick around for a 2 hour movie...not the commitment of a soap they don't regularly watch. On the weekends Soapnet HAS to grab the casual viewer...and you DO NOT do that with soaps.

What Soapnet SHOULD run is a one-hour "best of each show" compilation for the week...either one hour for ALL their shows, or maybe one hour for each soap. Unfortunately, that would require investment (editing, host, promotion) that I am guessing they don't want to do.

Soapnet was a failure from the beginning. It was not supported by the viewers. They did not watch Another World and Ryan's Hope in key timeslots. They are not supporting the marathons. Why should they? Everyone has a DVR these days. Soapnet is failing...so if we want the business to make money...they have to change.

The place for soap re-broadcasts and classic soaps is the Internet. CBS understands this. P&G understands this (with Hulu). NBC kind of understands this (with I-tunes). ABC is lagging BADLY.

Soapnet needs to leave the soap brand behind. When the shows have core audiences of under 2 million in the daypart...the fractional audience that will visit Soapnet in the off-hours is TRIVIAL. You CANNOT make money that way. Forget it.

Emotionally, we all want Soapnet to be our "soap home". But the business model doesn't work, and it is unfair to ask ABCD to bleed money to make a few thousand of us happy.

The one thing I wonder: Y&R has not lost its' grip on Saturday primetime ("Saturday Nights in the City")...and it does not appear to be in jeopardy. Do you think this could be the exception, and it is a ratings success?

I sure wish Sara Bibel would dig into this on her blog, or rain1 would come back and tell us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Y&R and B&B are international soaps- IMO- their Neilson ratings don't come close to reflecting their viewership. ABC has always chased the younger generation and I think they recognize their stopping point where soaps are concerned.

I don't think it's awful to interject a show here or there not in daytime, because like Y&R following the Price is Right, and B&B following the news, it creates an interesting lineup-

I think they understood their business model and the ratings before launching Soap Net- I think this was their plan all along- to pick up on shows that have already been aired and represent them to the audience- Vintage television- I don't think they have any intention on moving any ABCD soaps to this station once cancelled- if anything they will do spinoffs and place their popular actors on contract through those shows. They seem to be testing that now, and prepping for the next 10 years. I think they would do much better to come up with a deal with Lifetime and find ways of getting ahold of those movies. Lifetime movies have always been successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You all make good points. I do think, though classic episodes or those themed shows like the "Brenda, Brenda, Brenda episodes they used to do were good. They just need to do more specials like that with every soap. A three/four hour special every Saturday or Sunday seems like it wouldn't hurt. I loved the classic episodes they showed featuring Angie and Jesse before they came back. I wonder how the ratings were for that?

Regardless of ratings and trying to stay profitable, I don't think that Beverly Hills 90210 needs to air as much as it does. I'd prefer they ran some of their prime time reruns as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In the current climate of, not 100 channels and nothign good on, but 1000+ channels and nothing good on--couldn't there be a SoapNet classic? Surely there would be SOME market for this and it would cost ABC/SoapNet next to nothing to run. Loving from the start, classic AMC, OLTL, maybe cheaply done specials and marathongs--ABC still owns some of the rights to the classic 60s primetime Peyton Place and could run that too--hell even throw Dark Shadows there if it's no longer being aired somewhere else. I just don't get why in the current market they don't seem to think this is viable?

We don't get SoapNet in Canada, but it's bizarre--the more special cable stations we get the more they all resemble each other. Canada's first wave of basic cable stations all had very distinct interests/shows--Showcase was l;argelyfor kinda arty (or dirty) movies, Canadian Bravo all for the arts, etc etc Ten year sor so later ALL of them seem to show CSI and Law and Order reruns--somthign not hard to find on network tv ANYWAY, etc. I really don't understand how catering to the masses benefits these specialty driven stations. I'ts kinda disillusioning.

Honestly Sopapnet having a Dirty Sexy Money marathon is fine by me--using that station occasionally to promote soapy shows from ABC makes sense. But airing Troop Beverly Hills, does not.

Was the last special thing they did the "classic" Greenlee and Jesse and Angie episodes in Feb or Jan? As annoying as it was that they showed no old school Greenlee--again that was exactly what I want a station like Soapnet to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think this would make a great idea- airing episodes following up to or after episodes in which they've recieved good ratings. I also think they could segment the shows to just couples- every Saturday/Sunday featuring a soap couple and have the actors give interviews- people would love that- even the channel surfers. Lord, knows ABC would have plenty to pull from and they could relaunch couple fanbases and get people more interested in the shows.

I think if they went too far in the Primetime line up they could end up completely unfocused... I think if they went for soaps that have been canceled and aired them in the "wee" hours of the night or morning- they would find a very interesting audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

SoapNet wasn't always a failure. At one point, SoapNet was one of the top two cable outlets that maintained viewership for the entire program. While other viewers tuned out during commericals, SoapNet viewers were known for keeping with the program for the full thirty minute or hour long period. Of course, this was the result of having a strong older female demographic. However, I suspect that demographic has been lost with the emphasis on teenage programming. That said, I would be curious to see if SoapNet still maintains its audience the way it use to.

I think SoapNet has done a decent job of attracting, or reattracting, an audience. My mother, who hadn't watched soaps in many years started watching soaps again because of SoapNet, and many of her friends have as well. I think SoapNet is gearing itself towards the wrong market. They should be going after the former Luke & Laura generation who are now in there forties and fifities. The youthful slant SoapNet has taken, which I beleive began around the time Brian Frons took over SoapNet, but correct me if I'm wrong, has done in SoapNet.

I suspect classic soaps will also end up on an OnDemand type service and would do fairly well. SoapNet's initial draw was the reruns of "Ryan's Hope". While there may not be a huge audience out there for soaps, they are one of the few willing to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hey, on the viewer loyalty thing, I think they are still claiming to be #1. Viewers change the channel less on that network. Where did I read that? Sara Bibel??

The Luke and Laura generation is NOT valued. We are in our forties. WE ARE TOO OLD. That will not make Soapnet profitable. Thus, they are CORRECT to aim at the 90210 audience. That is PRECISELY the audience the advertisers want.

Again, it is really important for us to remember this: THE ONLY DEMO THAT MATTERS IS 18-39. We might wish it to be otherwise, but it doesn't matter.

You CANNOT have a profitable network with people older than 39. It is Madison Avenue demographic values that did Soapnet in. Soapnet is doing what it HAS to to stay alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I read about the viewership thing in an article online. At the time the articel was published, circa 2002, Lifetime was the number one network for maintaining viewership with SoapNet in second.

I didn't realize the only way to make money was through that demographic. Considering all the niche networks out there, I thought that different subsets of the population could be considered profitable as well. Granted, I was under the understading that youth was craved as the most marketable, but I thought others outside that range could still be targeted and money could be made. I hope this doesn't come off as argumentative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Community Posts

    • A few years ago, there was a certain number of the banking and business sectors that tried to promote the idea of a “cashless” society and at first, I was willing to hear them out but upon hearing more information, I decided that it would eventually become another facet of a divide along socioeconomic lines, with the ‘haves’ benefiting and the ‘have nots’ being at a marked disadvantage. We’re already getting a taste of the repercussions of this with some establishments that have tried to deny cash payments, for example an upscale fast-casual eatery called Sweetgreen (very popular here in the Northeast U.S.) which was forced to reverse their anti-cash policy after a severe backlash once the policy became public. Well, they do say that necessity is the mother of invention and necessity, and I guess necessity can also provide the incentive to transform and refigure.
    • I love that office set and I wish we could see more of it. I forgot the verbal exchange between Lady Whistle Tits and Colin. What was the outcome? Why was she crying? Did Colin clock her over the head and stick a mini LGBTQ flag in the middle layer of her eardrum?
    • Well, we all knew this was going to happen with Sloan/Eric/Nicole/EJ. But I like this storyline. I just wish they would slow it down. You don’t rush through a storyline when it’s good, you play it for all its worth. I hope we get another twist somewhere down the line. Plus, there’s too many Dimeras on the canvas as it is. And not enough Bradys.  Speaking of Dimeras, what was this Dimitri/Kristen marriage [!@#$%^&*]??  Thank God it seems like it’ll be over and done with after just this one episode. And judging by the way those scenes ended, I hope this doesn’t mean that Peter Porte lied in the Michael Fairman interview. Plus, I see they’re screwing up the timeline again, since 39 years ago, Megan was in Salem, completely alive and devoted to Bo.  Other than that, I would much rather have seen Chloe’s first day at the Spectator rather than just hearing about it. And I would much rather have heard about Leo crying about Colin rather than seeing it. They really need to sort out their priorities on this show. 
    •   RHOA has lost the humor that took it to the top of the RH franchises. The ones who understood comedy either got grumpy (Nene), fired (Phaedra) or left of their own accord (Porsha). Kenya and Kandi are not natural comedians. Sheree's comedy was her obliviousness. The shade is now about jabbing each other, not having a belly laugh. Editing is trying to fill the humor gap but failing. There is also no cohesion: everyone comes across as a work hire. I've been waiting for my streaming service to upload last week's AND yesterday's episode. It claims there is a 'technical issue' but has no problem uploading RHONJ, VPR and other Bravo content. I don't know what's going on, but it happened with last season's RHOA, too. It's symbolic of the way Bravo has checked out of this franchise. They need to bring back Nene, Porsha, Phaedra, Cynthia, even KZB (though I really don't like her). Just throw everything at this show, and if Kandi or Kenya are unhappy about those returns, welp... 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • 100%. Companies want to block any criticism or duck accountability with regards to delivering a service. They sent two young kids to deal with hundreds of passengers, and they just repeated the mantra "Please go onto the website and rebook your journey." Not one executive or decision-maker was visible. To compound matters, I ended up catching Covid from the melée of passengers at the station, lol. This is what I mean about being let down by tech. A more personalized, human(e) service would have been more efficient in this situation. Within an hour, most passengers could have been quickly rebooked on trains that very day. But Eurostar just wants the algorithm deal with everything, and save some $$ and avoid either training humans or having to deal with human customers. Another example: the closure of physical retail bank spaces in the UK. They want everyone to do banking 'on the app.' This is isolating a sizeable portion of older or immigrant residents who prefer dealing in cash and checks and don't know how to use computers or fancy smartphones. How to take out cash or deposit checks? Where do you go when you notice fraud in your account or on your credit card? Sit on a phone for half-an-hour and go through the motions dictated by automated voicecall? Biden also recognises the alliance aspect of shared values under threat. But I will say that the Inflation Reduction Act was not well received in the EU -- it was seen as a competitive strike to attract European green business across the Atlantic to the US. Now the EU is trying to formulate meaningful green subsidies and incentives of its own. Fear of an invasion of Taiwan is also governing this decision. Will the US back the Pacific alliance of Taiwan, Japan and South Korea? Guess that depends on who is in the WH.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy