Will the economic downturn finally be the death of soaps?

[brimike]

I'm sure they appreciate that sentiment - but I don't know what's more worrisome - that we're all so wrong about them (and their supposed "talent") because they're both still unemployed (and maybe for reasons they're not aware of) ... or that they're more "experienced" (your words) than the people who have been doing this for thirty years.

Either way, we (the viewers) come out the losers.

[brimike]

*** DOUBLE POST ***

[ReddFoxx]

If the soaps were canceled, then the networks would just lose another source of advertising revenue and the last thing any of the networks want to do is lose revenue of any kind. There is nothing they could put in place of the soaps that would generate good revenue. Soaps might not be popular, but as long as there is some money to be made, the networks with exception of NBC will hold on to soaps.

[JaneAusten]

But it's only a source of revenue as long as the networks are making money. Look at the cuts at GL and there are longtime fans of the show screaming how horrible it is now. If ad rates go down, the shows go into the red and have to continue cutting costs. But it is a valid point. The part of this that leads me to believe it's sooner rather than later is just a little item but it bothered me. For the last 5 weeks in ABC's press releases, they have played out how well The View has been doing almost to the extreme while hardly mentioning any of their soaps, even though both AMC and OLTL have both leveled out and actually shown some minor increases. I am sure The View is pennies to produce versus a daytime soap. As are reality, game, and news shows.

Daytime used to produce enough revenue to support primetime to an extent and primetime shows actually got time to catch on before the cancellation hacket was taken out. After the cancellation of 3 marginal(not horribly rated) rated shows on ABCD, it's pretty evident the revenue cow daytime was no longer is. Is CBS next? And paycuts at ABC across the board signals revenue is not as high as desired. Unfortunately those pesky shareholders at GE who owns CBS and Disney who owns ABC only care about profit and with profits down, cutting costs is the only way to increase profit. Why would GE and Disney, both profitable companies in the past, have the patience to deal with the dynamics of television and be willing to absolve those businesses while continuing to expect other businesses they own generate huge profits. SSW is cancelled(one sign), GL's budget slashed to the point of non recognition, Days slashing theirs, ABC cutting salaries, it's all the signs of cost costing and if revenues and profits were acceptable you'd see none of this. It's just another business to both Disney and GE.

I personally like the idea of sending soaps to cable television there they don't have to rely 100 percent on ad revenue to pay for them. It would still mean changes to an extent but might allow them more freedom.

[All My Shadows]

I wonder...has the idea of decreasing the output of soaps ever come up anywhere? It'd be a gigantic change indeed and one that people would have to get used to, but I think it could be an interesting thing to do. They could either cut down to four episodes a week or just have the shows take a month or two off throughout the year. It would be similar to just cutting the shows back down to half-an-hour (which is what I WANT THEM TO DO!), but since there's a whole lot of "It's cheaper to do a one hour show than two half-hour shows!" this seems to be the next best thing.

[Kstaff]

But what if soaps aren't generating good revenue? If people are turning to cable or reruns for their entertainment, networks are going to have to go with the cheapest shows possible. That might mean talk shows, judge shows, reality shows, or reruns. Those shows still need commercials. And, the networks would be saving money and still bring in whatever advertising revenue could still be made. And remember, these networks/soap producers have to churn out FIVE soap episodes per soap per week, as opposed to primetime, which has to churn out one, maybe two, shows per week and go into reruns almost as fast as I change my socks. (which, I promise, is daily. ) Plus, soaps have a sizable ensemble cast, even with cutbacks.

[miajere]

There are plenty of ways to replace soaps. I don't imagine these all the shows dying on the same day, but there are some ways to go about creating that DOOL- young front burner story telling- only with cheaper sets, and talentless actors. It doesn't have to be good for 40 years, just 1-2 years.

Extending the news is an option- but I'm sure there are plenty of other demographics these networks are going to target. I don't imagine these networks giving up on the idea of the housewife, and will be looking to fill the noon-4 hour with shows that still hold true to that model....Only this time they will include the men and women who work from home. I'm seeing more Martha S. less Rachel R., more The View and less OLTL....I'm thinking these people will want to be the first to find a suitable Ellen style show, to captivate people's attention- young, old, single, married, and divorced. Maybe there's value in keeping General Hospital and Young and the Bill Bell shows- but only to mix up the lineup.

There's also the success of hitting kids and teens who get out of school, with shows that cater to them in Brian Frons' version of Gossip Girl.

[MarkH]

I basically co-sign every word here. That is where it is headed...and if any soaps are saved for a few more years, it is the ones you mention. Shows that cheap to make, require little commitment, that can serve as cross-promotion opportunities (e.g., extra hours of Today used to sell stuff). It wouldn't surprise me if there were more reruns of primetime shows too.

Soaps cannot survive, and that is a simple demographic fact. I wish they could, but they will not. We are on the tail end of a decline phenomenon that began no later than 1980 (probably earlier). Eventually, when the water runs out of the bucket, the bucket is dry. It truly is that simple.

[MTSRocks]

How about this for a zany idea? Move the soaps to WEEKEND afternoons, when mostly EVERYONE is home lol.

[MarkH]

Soapnet no longer programs soaps at this time. They claim that the only/optimal time their viewers want to watch soaps is weekday evenings.

The exception must be Y&R, which gets Saturday primetime (7-12 pm).

[JaneAusten]

I think the days of appealing to the housewife is dead and buried. But I think there's alot of validity to appealing more to work at home folks versus the sterotypical housewife. I think the shows like Rachel Ray, The View, and other talk shows mixed in with some variation of news(Rachel Maddow on MSNBC is extremely popular with younger women and men) will be the ticket. And maybe a few soaps for a time with a reduced cast, reducing the time to 30 minutes might help. In the end I just think cable TV is a home that would better care for these shows myself, away from the pressures of ratings being the 100 percent driving force.

Yeah YR seems to break that mold more than the other shows. I would love to know why it has moreso than others. Perhaps just simply because it has the largest viewing audience period and nothing more.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

I've often wondered how much revenue B&B and Y&R bring in with overseas distribution. I wish we had some solid figures.

Also, in a few years, both Y&R and B&B will probably be plagued with horrible budget cuts, use fewer and fewer sets, and fire some veteran performers. I don;t think any soap will be immune, the genre is just dying and losing its appeal to the general public, and there's several factors for that.

[miajere]

It's a demographic issue- they haven't taken care to diversify- sexual orientation-wise, culturally, financially, etc... Fear has held them behind the curve.

I remeber they did this with alot of those Sweet Valley High shows and Saved by the Bells- they did well in their demographics - young kids, not teens. Adults do stuff on the weekend too. Plus, The escapism just isn't there for shows like Grey's Anatomy, like they are for OLTL. The passionate, sometimes psychotic soap fan that's willing to suspend her disbelief for a travel in time trip to Mendorra will not work twice or less a week. So essentially you're talking about a new show that people like and are committed to- which is exactly what's going to come on after the soaps are over.. They won't be anything as great as what's on now, but people will like it, and will have less reservations about tuning in.

I was having a conversation with a friend about this the other night...I think the housewives are in college. They didn't go and get married right away, but they are looking for their man in school- maybe not necessarily at the Ivy League places- maybe they are....But there are plenty of women who want to have a career, but there are plenty of women who just want to get married. They are the fashionistas hanging outside the Sex and the City premiere, living in fear of ending alone and happy to see Carrie finally tie that knot.

It may not be the stereotypical housewife- think "The Bachelor". But the housewives are still out there. They're alittle more educated, proactive, and informed than the old housewife model- which is why Oprah is still in business- she was willing to grow with these women and pick up their children in her demos, and went on to provide them a new network to watch other women, just like them, fall in love- OXYGEN.

DOn't get me wrong I don't want my soaps to become Sex and the City- but there's something to be said about the women portrayed on soaps and the women in television period. Big difference.

I know a few people who work from home that watch Y&R...Y&R is polished, executive, the women grew with them in companies and in power, and the men aren't shameful sex offenders with no morals. They watch it during their lunch hour- if not on a call.

[DaytimeFan]

I don't have solid numbers, we'll never get them since B&B is privately held and half of Y&R's numbers are privately held by the Bells while the rest are held by Sony (with 1% to Corday) but I do know that, in B&B's case, the money it makes overseas is enough that, if it were canceled by CBS, the Bells could easily produce it for overseas distribution alone. I don't know about Y&R but I have noticed that, in recent years, Sony has been marketing the show overseas like it never has before. The Bells, in my opinion, have a vision for their shows that extends beyond the USA, I would not be at all shocked if, in 20 years, the Bells are creating telenovelas (unrelated to Y&R and B& for international distribution. They seem to know that soaps are a dying breed in the USA and that if they want to stay in business, they'll do so overseas.

I think when it comes to their shows the Bells will do ANYTHING before firing veterans and cheaping out on sets. They KNOW what this does to their product and their brand. In fact, I think they'd end the shows before letting them fall into the sort of visual disrepair that has afflicted GL. For the Bells, it's about dignity.

Bingo, in my office our lunch break is from 11-12, the very time Y&R airs. It's intentional. The women in my office, plus my wife, would totally agree with what you said about how the women on Y&R have grown with the audience. I asked one of my receptionists what she thought about Jill and she said something like "I remember when Jill was a young fool, just like me, then I remember her as she tried to make it on her own, just like me and now I see her having made her life happen, just like me. I am Jill and Jill is me." Now, my receptionist is NOT Jill Abbott, she doesn't scheme or scream or get into catfights (at least recently)...but she's grown and changed and evolved. I've always identified with the character of Brad Carlton, I wasn't a gardener but I've been 'there' and, like Brad, I'm now 'here'...with the other soaps (aside from B& the characters that I knew have all been shafted for younger models, it's just insulting to the long term viewer and it isn't realistic.

[MarkH]

That is new information for me. I thought I read an interview once with Brad Bell where he said they COULDN'T make it without the US deal. But, if what you say is true, if CBS cancelled the show, they might be able to make enough (at least for a while) with a cable or syndication deal. Do you think this is why B&B is so awful these days (from a US perspective?). Because those tortured, incestuous romances play better with the global audience?

I devoutly hope what you say is true. I would rather Y&R ended TODAY, on a strong note, than degenerate into that sickly, unrecognizable, cheap thing.

I wonder how much of the maturation you describe is intentional, and how much is a natural outgrowth of the fact that the veterans were allowed to age on camera. It shows, in any case, the benefit of letting your cast age with your show.

For Y&R, and especially for B&B, it also highlights the single biggest vulnerability of these shows....the continued difficulty of building and integrating a viable younger generation. Internationally OR in the US, without a strong next-generation (Y&R is coming along in this area), the shows are toast.