Newbies can't take cuts though. Their salary is set by the union and the show cannot pay them any less than they are supposed to make without being sanctioned, fined and blacklisted by the union. And if they go to strike and negotiate a new contract (and they will) those newbies will once again see their salary increase.

I'm guessing if there is a new contract any time soon it might just work the other way. When an industry is failing, isn't the union usually asked to take cuts? If they don't doesn't the industry usually go under? You don't have to look further than the front page of CNN to see that happening in more than one industry right now (auto, airline). Soaps seem to be on the same disastrous path.

Honestly, I'm not sure what is really fair here. On the one hand unions have stopped the free market from working, which is probably part of the reason that these shows are going under. At the same time, things would probably be even more skewed in the favor of the studio without the union. Maybe there is no long term solution and soaps are an unworkable model going forward. It's looking more and more like that to me as time goes on. Unless we get a government bailout...

Yay! That makes me happier than it should! I live by the belief that nothing is more oppressive than nostalgia.

Actually the Marceline Axiom can be summed up by the words of Billy Joel in Keepin' the Faith : "The good old days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

Marceline, you are famous!! Your "axiom" made Roger Newcomb's We Love Soaps.

You might also be interested in this contrarian perspective at DC! "Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated". The site is down now, so I can't give a link, but you'll know it when you see it. It is a great, long, analytical, skeptical article! THIS is what the magazines SHOULD be.

We live in a world where actors (well, the handful of lucky ones) get paid more than teachers, and though that isn't "fair" in the grand scheme of things, it's absolutely appropriate. There's big money in film and television, and a) we should never let them convince us of otherwise, and believe me, it's not the actors who see the bulk of it. Actors (and in many cases, I use that term loosely) deserve every penny they get when as another poster said, they're making much bigger money for their employers. Whether they're wonderfully talented or just pretty/charismatic, if they're boosting viewership and ad dollars, they certainly deserve a heftier piece of the pie than the one they're probably getting.

I grew up in a soap loving family, if you asked me when I was a kid or a teen if I wanted to be on a soap, I'd emphatically say yes. Ask me now, not so much. I'm an awful combination of a procrastinator and an obsessive-compulsive. For me, soaps are too much work in too little time, I think I'd have an experience similar to JVA's on Y&R. Bite my tongue, but perhaps it's best that there aren't more "real" actors in soaps because they'd probably be banging their heads against walls and breaking down left and right with the lack of prep time. What bliss for a soap performer to get a fat check and not be burdened with craft.

ABC Daytime Prez, Brian Frons Takes "MTV Approach" to Current Economic Crisis Facing Daytime

Submitted by Jamey Giddens on November 26, 2008 - 6:13pm.

For its in depth article on how the situation in Detroit is affecting daytime television— a must read for anyone trying to figure out the logic of a daytime television executive— Ad Age interviewed ABC Daytime President Brian Frons.

According to the article, Frons's strategy to fix what ails daytime is to spend money on CGI and "glitz", while cutting the salaries of his network's stable of talent. Well, we could have told them that.

Brian Frons, president of daytime for Disney-ABC Television Group, said, "Constantly keeping tabs on your costs, by culling the cast and taking an almost 'MTV' approach," is a fact of life for daytime nowadays. But while Mr. Frons confirmed he has had to slash his soap stars' salaries, he said, "We like to negotiate salaries down but not out. Instead, whenever possible, when we cut costs, we aim to do it off-air, in what the audience doesn't see."

It appears Fron's strategy, while angering a lot of online soap fans, just might be working as AD Age reports All My Children saw a 20 percent ratings increase the week after his CGI-Tornado Porn played out.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't MTV, which just canceled TRL, also in trouble? Help us Holy Ghost.

http://daytimeconfidential.com/2008/11/abc...-facing-daytime

There's an article by Michael Logan in the new TV Guide, he's saying even after she takes a paycut Lucci will still be making about $1 million a year

Frons says that "We are asking more from the ones who have more"

Hmm what about you asshat?

There's an article by Michael Logan in the new TV Guide, he's saying even after she takes a paycut Lucci will still be making about $1 million a year

Frons says that "We are asking more from the ones who have more"

Hmm what about you asshat?

To be fair tho, and idk why i or anyone wants to eb fair to said asshat, if a shows budget is cut then BF taking a paycut wont exactly help the budget of the show. His budget porb comes from abc overall.

There's an article by Michael Logan in the new TV Guide, he's saying even after she takes a paycut Lucci will still be making about $1 million a year

Frons says that "We are asking more from the ones who have more"

Hmm what about you asshat?

He need to take a 70% paycut

There's an article by Michael Logan in the new TV Guide, he's saying even after she takes a paycut Lucci will still be making about $1 million a year

Frons says that "We are asking more from the ones who have more"

Hmm what about you asshat?

To be clear: This is NOT a big salary for a star. She has made them MUCH more than this.

The whole thing makes me sick, honestly. It is like death by a thousand knives.