Members Cheap21 Posted September 18, 2008 Members Share Posted September 18, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members nell17 Posted September 18, 2008 Members Share Posted September 18, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members Pavarti31 Posted September 18, 2008 Members Share Posted September 18, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted September 18, 2008 Members Share Posted September 18, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members miajere Posted September 18, 2008 Members Share Posted September 18, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted September 18, 2008 Members Share Posted September 18, 2008 I like almost everything you say in this post. It feels "true" to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nell17 Posted September 19, 2008 Members Share Posted September 19, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted September 19, 2008 Members Share Posted September 19, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members Darlotto99 Posted September 19, 2008 Members Share Posted September 19, 2008 I think the Bells/CBS should end their deal with Soapnet and move Y&R replays to the Oxygen Network. along with all the other replays of CBS soaps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brimike Posted September 19, 2008 Members Share Posted September 19, 2008 Mark, I don't know how you do it, but color me envious. You officially can look at at everything from both an emotional POV, and a business POV, simultaneously. I've been trying to achieve that goal for years, and it still eludes me. Kudos to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members miajere Posted September 19, 2008 Members Share Posted September 19, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members dc11786 Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members dc11786 Posted September 21, 2008 Members Share Posted September 21, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted September 22, 2008 Members Share Posted September 22, 2008 It's funny I always thought the demo thing was relatively new but in All Her Children Agnes Nixon is already talking about how all the networks really care about is the 18-39 female demo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.