Soap Stars You Feel Have Been Disloyal to Their Shows

[DaytimeFan]

To play devil's advocate...your example of Jerry Ver Dorn states that he was lucky P&G kept him around all those year...couldn't it be said that P&G was lucky Jerry Ver Dorn stayed at the show as long as he did? I don't watch the show but one doesn't stay in a role for more than two decades without being popular and getting great Q scores. He brought something to the table just as P&G did.

And now to salary. The fact is that the only soap that is nearing un profitability is GL. Every other soap on the air still makes a tonne of money. The issue is how much money the shows make. Naturally, networks and production companies want to max out the bucks just as the actors do! Everyone wants to make the most money they can. This is show business, there is no such thing as 'fair'...'fair' is a 4 letter word that just doesn't apply in this business.

And let's just forget being "morally acceptable"... Morals are relative. Take the cases of Anna Lee and Frances Reid. In Anna Lee's case she'd been at GH since 1978 and was in her 90s and still working when her contract was terminated in 2004, she died a few months later. Frances Reid is a year younger than Anna Lee and is simply too old to work. Yet she remains on contract, on salary and with star billing at DAYS. It should be noted that Anna Lee's salary doesn't even tough Frances Reid's who is paid very very well. The difference is that, love him or hate him, Ken Corday has love and affection and loyalty to Frances Reid and regardless of what it costs he is taking care of Frances Reid's lifetime contract. ABC couldn't give less of a sh*t about its actors. The Bells are like Corday, they care. P&G is like ABC, they could care less.

It's dog eat dog in this business so I say when it comes to salaries everyone should fight for their worth.

[Cashton]

Here's the thing you don't seem to get - just because a show's value (in this case ratings) goes down, doesn't mean that the value of it's actors do. I understand some shows that let go of popular actors because THEY CAN'T AFFORD THEM.

Think about it this way - If you buy a house and you buy very extravagant furniture (financed), and your salary gets cut, you have a choice. You can keep the house, you can keep the furniture or go broke. Just because the homeowner's income changed doesn't mean that they don't have to pay as much for their bills (actors). And if they try to ask the actor to take a cut - the acotr can accept or reject, but the bottom line is that the actors value is diminished. And if they quit over that they are free to protest.

Funny thing is, you never hear about execs taking pay cuts (although I can't imagine a world where Ellen Wheeler has the same salary as day one of her run there).

[SteveFrame]

Again I want to put a disclaimer that I am not referring to Max here but just in general.

I have had this same conversation with many on the Internet who feels that actors should take pay cuts in order to save the shows they are working on. Many people love their shows so much that they put weird expectations on the actors that work for that show.

I have pressed many of them on the issue turning it around to them personally.

and I will ask again. If you have worked for a job for 26 years and suddenly the boss comes to you and says well things are going rough and in order to keep the business going you are going to have to take less pay than you are getting now or we may have to close.

Most often when turned around most of them will say no. And most people won't. I have been in management for the majority of my working life and let me tell you most people are not going to take a pay cut or make a sacrifice for the company they work for. It is a rare person that will.

Another aspect of this that I have talked about is that we put more expectations on the actors themselves than we do others involved with the shows. In everything that is reported about the shows not once have we heard one thing that the writers and producers are being asked to take pay cuts. They are still making the same money.

They have for years made more money than most actors on soaps have anyway but yet it is the actors and not management that are being required to take the fall to save the show.

And what is worse you continue to watch the shows that are hurting budget wise make the stupidest mistakes but yet they continue to ask their actors to make sacrifices. For instance Days paid Hogan Sheffer's big salary and then turned around and had to let several actors and actresses go due to budget reasons when he first came on (i.e. Matthew Ashford, Melissa Reeves, Austin Peck, Christie Clark, etc.). And then later while you are hearing rumors that some actors will have to take pay cuts they go and hire Oscar winner Shirley Jones who couldn's have been cheap for a short stint.

And anotehr thing they continually pay actors on the show not to work - not even working them their contractural agreements - which means they are wasting money. And then they turn around and work someone else over what they have agreed too which means they have to pay that person more.

It is just hard for me to get mad at an actor for refusing to take a pay cut when the shows do things like that.

Plus I will admit that I am one that would be hard pressed for most companies I have worked for to take a pay cut for the sake of the company. For one most times I couldn't afford it. I have never had the luxury of making more than my family really needed and at any point it would have been a big sacrifice for my family to suddenly have to go to less pay.

So I can't very well hold it against any actor for not doing so. After all they have families and expenses too.

[Max]

Steve, even though I disagree with you, I definately want to say that you have made some very good points. Thanks for another well written post.

Believe it or not, I would be more than willing to take a pay cut if my employer was in financial trouble. (I concede, however, that few others would probably be willing to do so.) And, I fully agree that pay cuts should apply to everyone: not just actors, but the soap producers, writers, and executives.

Also, I'd like to clairfy something in my first post: the acts of disloyalty on the parts of Fulton and Zimmer were far worse than what VerDorn and Ehlers did. For one thing, both VerDorn and Ehlers chose not to criticize GL until after they left that show. Additionally, the complaints Fulton and Zimmer had were far more selfish in nature.

[SteveFrame]

Max, I think you have made some excellent points too, but I have to ask a couple of questions too.

I can understand why you think that Fulton & Zimmer were disloyal by speaking out about their shows but why did the list not include Erika Slezak who really lambasted OLTL and it's writer and it could be considered a DIVA move too since she was not being featured either.

Also Ellen Dolan was not mentioned and she went on record with her fans and spoke out about the show all because she was being written for.

Also Eric Braedan who spoke out against Jack Smith which had to be a DIVA move since Victor was pretty much being ignored.

And of course Victoria Rowell did the same thing both before and after she left the show.

To me if what Fulton and Zimmer did were considered the worse than long before you get to Ver Dorn and Ehlers all those need to be listed. What they did was essentially the same thing that fulton and Zimmer did in talking about their shows and criticizing them.

Just a disclaimer as I have said before I don't see it as disloyal but I just have often wondered why Fulton and Zimmer are pointed out all the time when what they did was no worse than these others did.

[Max]

Steve, I'm embarassed to say this, but I had forgotten about all of those instances of disloyalty that you mentioned above. Thus, that is why those actors were not named.

I'm guessing that Fulton and Zimmer get the most mentioned (when it comes to disloyalty) because their scuffles with TPTB received the most media attention. However, I still think that Fulton and Zimmer were more disloyal than the other names you mentioned (with the exception of Victoria Rowell).

[DaytimeFan]

Good lord.

It's a good thing I can write my own Botox prescription, otherwise my face would be contorting into all sorts of unpleasant expressions.

What is disloyal about looking after yourself and calling into question the way a show is being run? All of us love our soaps and yet most of us call our shows on a litany of bullsh*t every chance we get. Are we being disloyal by wanting the best for the show and for ourselves as viewers? Without the actors, these soaps don't exist.

[jimmyk311]

The bottom line is that if a soap opera isn't making money or making good enough ratings then everyone should take a pay cut, that includes lower production and cut BTS staff or an actor's pay or fired them after their contract cycle is up. People in the industry has to quit acting like f'ing ego divas and work as a team to get themselves out of this hellhole they put themselves into.

[DaytimeFan]

The math is off. The budget is what the EP is given to use. The well managed shows don't use all of it, they bank it for sweeps. And advertisers pay a helluva lot more money than 5 to 8 grand for a 30 second ad spot. If ANY of the soaps did the numbers you've listed they'd all be canceled. All of the soaps make a boatload of money. All of 'em. If they didn't they would be canceled.

[jimmyk311]

Sorry about the math, like I mention before, I always heard of those numbers over the years on the net and that daytime is a multi-billion industry, but for an industry making that much money, who stealing the money?

[DaytimeFan]

No worries on the math. Nobody is stealing the money. What's happening is that networks are unaccustomed to soaps not making the same kind of money they used to. Back in the 70s and 80s daytime soap operas actually supported network prime time television which was often hit and miss and made less money than daytime. Now, neither one is raking in the same bucks they used to.

This is what the whole economic issue about soaps is: maximizing the dollar. Every network wants to make the most money they possibly can, they're bound to do so to serve their stockholders. All of the soaps still make money, it's that networks feel that, somehow, they can make more doing something else which is the issue.

[SteveFrame]

In the 70's and even early 80's I would say yes that soaps were making a boatload of money. They still make money but it is not a boatload anymore.

And part of that is not even due to the soaps decline in ratings.

In the early days of soaps up until the mid 80's, production costs for all the shows in daytime were lower. More was spent on sets than on wardrobe. The characters in daytime dressed per their economic background and I can remember Doreen Ackerman (costume designer in the 70's) saying that if a lady was a housewife in the mid-west they dressed her just like the average housewife in the mid-west. Today you can hardly look at the wardrobe on soaps and tell a person's social postition.

For instance Mimi on Days was supposed to be poorer than Belle on Days but often Mimi dressed better than Belle. It left you wondering where in the world did all the money come from for the designer clothes she wore.

Also writing staffs in particular were smaller. A head writer got paid and he paid for his staff out of his pay. In the 80's the WGA put a stop to that demanding the shows pay for more writers and each to have their own job in the staff. So more came from the budget for that.

Also in the early days of soaps it was rare for a daytime star to be popular. Most often the character was more popular than the actor. As more performers became stars they demanded more pay.

Over the years even with inflation in consideration the cost of producing an hour of daytime television has increased far above even the current rate of inflation.

For instance Days cost $150,000 per week to produce in 1975 - it's first year at an hour. (accoring to Afternoon TV magazine)

By 1984, it was only around $170,000 per week according to Daytime TV magazine.

By 2003, it had risen to $1.9 million dollars a week to produce. (according to various Internet sources)

That is a rise of 1,730,000 dollars in 14 years (from 1984 to 2003) and only 20,000 in the 9 years from 1975 to 1984.

Back in the 70's in particular Days cost $150,000 but it drew daily advertising revenues of over $100,000 - that is $500,000 a week the show brought in. So yes they were making boatloads of money then.

But they are not anymore. Today stars are making more money, writers are making more money, they waste money by paying actors for not working, they give stars more benefits like paying Tony Geary and Erika Slezak for long vacations that both hurt the show and the budget.

They also are not even being able to meet guarantees to advertisers and are having to give them free advertising on other shows to make up for it.

You are right that soaps are still making money or they would have been cancelled, but the margin is going down year by year. And soaps that the networks do not own are making them even less.

[y&r_fan]

I hate to break it to you, but it is evident that TPTB are quite happy with "Ausileen", hence the fact that she is still on the show.

And more bad news for you and your merry band of malcontents: they'll probably renew her contract when it expires... unless, of course, she decides to leave.