With the economy on the fritz will this signal a continued transition to less costly television - more talk shows, game shows, news shows, and reality shows? We have seen the cancellation of several shows on ABC primetime, none of which were horrible ratingswise(although not great), what's next? We have also seen Days get rid of major stars, both Days and ABC undergo pay cuts, what could be next?

Articles I have read in USA Today, local newspapers all covered the firing of Deidra and Drake discussing the end of soaps and how ad rates for all of television are down and that this could be the final nail in the coffin for soaps. Could inexpensive TV like reality tv and talk shows continue to replace shows on primetime that get cancelled make their move to daytime? Why does ABC continue to focus on how wonderful The View's ratings have been while not focusing on how improved 2 of their 3 soaps have been? Why did CBS do nothing to promote sweeps at all?

It's sad to see an era potentially coming to an end sooner rather than later. Is it possible people might gravitate back to soaps?

Edited November 29, 200816 yr by JaneAusten

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.

There is so much WORD here, I don't think it'll fit in the box, especially your comment about how women are portrayed on the shows, especially the "heroines". I know, on boards, I see Days' fans lamenting that Marlena rarely sees patients anymore. Occasionally Kayla was playing doctor, but she hasn't been on for a while. The only female on Days shown working right now is Hope, and that's cause it fits in the storyline, with her job as a detective. Nicole has been reduced to a starry eyed in love woman willing to lie to keep her guy instead of keeping her spark and snark.

On OLTL, Dorian was shown for a while in her corporate mode when she had BE, now she's protecting the Cramer women, which is still a neat little thought (women surviving and sticking together without men). but Gigi going for her twu wuv 4evah (and I like Gigi!).....Marty still ruminating feelings for Todd even after what he did....Natalie getting rescued by Jared (sort of).....Jessica going off the deep end without her husband.....

Edited December 1, 200816 yr by Kstaff

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.

I think B&B is so 'awful' (I actually find it fun) for exactly the reason you stated. The storylines that are playing out, in my view, play well overseas.

I'm with you, if Y&R has to end, I'd rather it end on the day of Katherine's funeral than any other day, it would end with such dignity. I've often thought that, in hindsight, it's a great thing that AW ended when it did. It never had to stoop to GL levels.

I think the maturation is a bit of both. I don't think it's any coincidence that the character of Jill has been played by 4 actresses over the years...but then, it helps, as you say, that the cast, overall, has been allowed to age onscreen.

I think the vulnerability you see with these shows, the lack of a 'next generation' is sort of my point. I think the Bells see a time when Y&R and B&B aren't going to play in the USA and that they may relaunch these shows or just start new ones, overseas. In a way, I think it goes back to "Bell Dignity": they don't want to reinvent their shows just to satisfy some crazed executive (the only time they did that was with LML and we all saw how well THAT turned out).

IMO, the economic downturn will hasten the soaps demise. The cost of production will increase as advertising dollars spent decline. I think that Y&R and B&B survive the longest. Y&R has that prime time slot at lunch and B&B apparently rakes in the international dollars.

I do think that the networks should experience with turning the soaps were telenovelas. They could use some of the popular soap actors along with newer inexpensive young actors. They should also rotate the telenolas Gusing different soaps as a basis e.g. 13 episodes based on ATWT and then 13 episodes based on GL. They could also introduce completely new concepts for the telenovelas like Ugly Betty. This would substantially lower the cost of production and may bring in new ad dollars, especially if they finally commit to diversity.

IMO, the economic downturn will hasten the soaps demise. The cost of production will increase as advertising dollars spent decline. I think that Y&R and B&B survive the longest. Y&R has that prime time slot at lunch and B&B apparently rakes in the international dollars.

I do think that the networks should experience with turning the soaps were telenovelas. They could use some of the popular soap actors along with newer inexpensive young actors. They should also rotate the telenolas Gusing different soaps as a basis e.g. 13 episodes based on ATWT and then 13 episodes based on GL. They could also introduce completely new concepts for the telenovelas like Ugly Betty. This would substantially lower the cost of production and may bring in new ad dollars, especially if they finally commit to diversity.

I'm showing how green I am, but I've never watched a nelenovela. What's the difference between the two genres?

I've actually lived in couple of neighborhoods in the last decade with housewives. There are more than a few too....it's a good proportion of the homes with young children that have a stay at home mother (mostly).

One of the neighborhoods was more working class, the other more professional.

In both situations, the stay-at-home moms really represented three constituencies. One was the Christian mother. For her, caring for the family was part of the woman's role...a right, duty and privilege.

A second constituency was women of ethnic/recent immigrant families. There, too, the stay-at-home status of the mother seemed to be driven by cultural and religious factors.

A third constituency was what I'll sterotypically call "the liberal, granola" family. Here, there was a cluster of values and beliefs (breastfeeding only, avoid disposable diapers, cook and puree your own baby food from organic vegetables, avoid television and stimulate with reading and music, etc.). The stay-at-home mother concept here was considered a necessary sacrifice to produce a child untainted by the toxicities of modern industrial, consumerist society.

I cannot speak for the second constituency. But constituencies 1 and 3 were NOT watching soaps. The "liberal, granola" group fundamentally did not believe in television...or the values promulgated by soaps (in their stereotypes). In those homes, the TV plain was not on. In the other families, I also find that mothers today were more engaged with their children--spent more time engaging with them (and socializing with other moms), and less time cleaning and cooking and ironing (the things that kept the mother of the 60s and 70s chained to her television). In these homes, when the TV was on, I understood that it tended to be more news and public affairs (Martha, The View, Later Today, Oprah, maybe with a little HGTV added in).

Truly, the housewive still exists...for shorter time...but in substantial numbers. But she is not watching soaps.

IMO, the economic downturn will hasten the soaps demise. The cost of production will increase as advertising dollars spent decline. I think that Y&R and B&B survive the longest. Y&R has that prime time slot at lunch and B&B apparently rakes in the international dollars.

I do think that the networks should experience with turning the soaps were telenovelas. They could use some of the popular soap actors along with newer inexpensive young actors. They should also rotate the telenolas Gusing different soaps as a basis e.g. 13 episodes based on ATWT and then 13 episodes based on GL. They could also introduce completely new concepts for the telenovelas like Ugly Betty. This would substantially lower the cost of production and may bring in new ad dollars, especially if they finally commit to diversity.

Well, I think these experiments have happened, and they are failing.

- Port Charles adopted a 13-week telenovela format (even providing a new subtitle every 13 weeks). It failed. (Arguably, the fact that it was associated with a vampire through-line may have helped).

- Michael Malone experimented with short-arc stories featuring newbie characters when he first started at OLTL the first time. It was roundly reviled and abandoned.

- MyNetwork tried the daily "stripped" telenovela (with a Saturday recap episode) in primetime. It failed.

- Soapnet tried the 13 week standalone spinoff...not quite a telenovela, but it had that sense of a short-arc, contained, lower-commitment version. It succeeded critically, but failed in ratings.

Ugly Betty, the telenovela adaptation, has fared okay on US primetime. (But ratings are shrinking in Season Two, no?). But really, it has lost all sense of being a telenovela, and is now a conventional weekly dramedy.

I totally agree that, in theory, telenovelas seem like the wave of the future. So far, we have not found the right formula.

Arguably, the huge miniseries of the 70s (Rich Man, Poor Man; Holocaust; The Thorn Birds; Roots) were early prototypes of the telenovela. (Literally, they were branded as "novels for television"). Somewhere along the line, they stopped being hits. Their day, too, seems done.

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.

Honestly, though, in response to that chart, you really can't go by the HH numbers. The way those numbers work changes from season to season, and so while just by using those numbers, then yes, the ratings decline is going to look devastatingly and shockingly dramatic, but if you do the math and figure out how many households were being represented by each ratings point, it's a different story. I did the math for both the 1981-1982 season (Luke and Laura, anyone?) and the 2008-2009 (so far). Taking into consideration that ABC's big three were experiencing atmospheric popularity at this time, on average, there's only about a 2-4 million difference. Which, yes, is a lot, but is nowhere near as dramatic as charting the HH numbers would make it seem. Y&R's current numbers would qualify it for 9th place in the 1981-1982 season, B&B would qualify for 13th place, GH for 14th place, and OLTL, DAYS, and AMC would all rank between the lowest-rated soap ("The Doctors") and the second-lowest rated soap (the beginning of the NBC run of "Search for Tomorrow"). I know, I know, it's not particularly encouraging to know that most of the current soaps would barely rank higher than last place, but at the same time, I hope it would at least calm down the notion that even the lowest-rated soap from that era would still rank higher than most of the current soaps. It's simply not true, and a good visit to SON's wonderful, amazing, delicious ratings archive proves it.

(P.S. Someone owes me for that shameless SON Ratings Archive plug!)

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.

Some of these characters got their degrees in 'street smart school for boys and girls'. The writers took their coniving and continued to up the ante- "I'll see your boyfriend, and I'll raise you a house and husband." Their attatchments to work go beyond careers- it's apart of their character fabric. They also keep this show updated with trends and technology. i.e. references to pop culture regularly implemented into dialogue. That said B&B is a hot mess, and really should go the Ugly Betty route and consider bringing on guests to shake it up in the kitchen.

But Y&R just doesn't make you feel ashamed as an adult soap viewer. In the last few weeks, they've put some primetime shows to shame.

Ok maybe I misspoke before referring to the stereotypical housewife. In no way did that mean there are not women at home yet but I think the role of the housewife has changed and I think that comments that followed my original post reinforces that. Most women I know who are stay at home moms tend to be out of the house more that at home, transporting the kids to school, attending various activities outside of the home. Any TV time at home while doing household chores tends to be shows like The View or Rachel or even the news stations or even the home shows on cable.

I felt in recent years ABC had a plan to move their soaps to Soapnet. With Soapnet morphing into something else, I don't see it happening.

As far as women watching, I personally find nothing remotely enjoyable about how any women on ABC soaps or Days are written for barring maybe OLTL occasionally. CBS on the other hand, particularly Y&R, with their portrayal of women is something it's nice to hear women are drawn to. Someone should clue the folks at ABC that , particularly the writers of General Hospital, who should be ashamed at what females they have put at the forefront of their show(s).

Edited December 1, 200816 yr by JaneAusten

Someone should clue the folks at ABC that , particularly the writers of General Hospital, who should be ashamed at what females they have put at the forefront of their show(s).

Case in point: my mother. My mother had been a loyal watcher of GH since the 70s. My mother is a nurse. Guess who my mother identifies with: Bobbie Spencer, RN. I kid you not, when Bobbie got the shaft, my mother instantly turned off, she felt that GH "forgot who was watching"...she's stayed with AMC, she likes that Susan Lucci is still the star and that David Canary (who she knew from his days on Bonanza) is still front and centre, to her that show hadn't really changed. She's also a big fan of B&B and Y&R because those shows are still what they've always been: glitzy, history based and solid.

Ok maybe I misspoke before referring to the stereotypical housewife. In no way did that mean there are not women at home yet but I think the role of the housewife has changed and I think that comments that followed my original post reinforces that. Most women I know who are stay at home moms tend to be out of the house more that at home, transporting the kids to school, attending various activities outside of the home. Any TV time at home while doing household chores tends to be shows like The View or Rachel or even the news stations or even the home shows on cable.

I felt in recent years ABC had a plan to move their soaps to Soapnet. With Soapnet morphing into something else, I don't see it happening.

As far as women watching, I personally find nothing remotely enjoyable about how any women on ABC soaps or Days are written for barring maybe OLTL occasionally. CBS on the other hand, particularly Y&R, with their portrayal of women is something it's nice to hear women are drawn to. Someone should clue the folks at ABC that , particularly the writers of General Hospital, who should be ashamed at what females they have put at the forefront of their show(s).

NO, I get what you were saying about housewives....But they really have moved to college. Those women have the ability to adjust their schedules to their favorite daytime shows. I know I did. When you're signing up for that 8am class, you wonder if they'll be time to run to the recreational rooms to watch Y&R. (University of Texas Austin played Y&R in their recreation rooms everyday same time in the 80's and 90's.) IN fact daytime television made better sense to me than primetime.

But that goes into what you were saying- what modern woman is identifying with or aspiring to be the women in daytime? The escapism just isn't there. Y&R has a fighting chance. But now that the mystery behind the fashion industry is being exploited on every corner- why hasn't B&B capitalized on that- models, designers, etc... And OLTL may introduce a modern woman, but in no time she joins rank with the rest of the cast.

But what about the nurses that love soaps, the people who work graveyard??I think the industry has underestimated how many people are at home during the day. It's diffcult to tune in when you feel only one demographic is coveted at any given time. It's almost as if daytime shuts out the multitudes of people who could be watching because they don't care to write for certain characters or are scared of offending the masses.

Case in point: my mother. My mother had been a loyal watcher of GH since the 70s. My mother is a nurse. Guess who my mother identifies with: Bobbie Spencer, RN. I kid you not, when Bobbie got the shaft, my mother instantly turned off, she felt that GH "forgot who was watching"...she's stayed with AMC, she likes that Susan Lucci is still the star and that David Canary (who she knew from his days on Bonanza) is still front and centre, to her that show hadn't really changed. She's also a big fan of B&B and Y&R because those shows are still what they've always been: glitzy, history based and solid.

Good for your mom. I watched GH years back and I remember Bobbi, Monica, Lesley, Tiffany, Lois, and the list goes on. All women who were beautiful but also had their careers showcased as part of who they were. I tuned out of GH long ago when they decided Carly, an uneducated mobsters wife was the epitome of a strong women.

NO, I get what you were saying about housewives....But they really have moved to college. Those women have the ability to adjust their schedules to their favorite daytime shows. I know I did. When you're signing up for that 8am class, you wonder if they'll be time to run to the recreational rooms to watch Y&R. (University of Texas Austin played Y&R in their recreation rooms everyday same time in the 80's and 90's.) IN fact daytime television made better sense to me than primetime.

I think that was true years ago and maybe is to some extent. Heck I remember my college days years ago and doing the same thing. But all dorms have internet connectivity, their own TV's. and the same options plaguing network TV for everyone else it the same that applies to college kids. There are just so many other options available to them. My neice a student at Ohio state said most in her dorm spend time on the internet or what you tend to see on the TV's is ESPN or news channels versus soaps if you can believe that.

I think that was true years ago and maybe is to some extent. Heck I remember my college days years ago and doing the same thing. But all dorms have internet connectivity, their own TV's. and the same options plaguing network TV for everyone else it the same that applies to college kids. There are just so many other options available to them. My neice a student at Ohio state said most in her dorm spend time on the internet or what you tend to see on the TV's is ESPN or news channels versus soaps if you can believe that.

That's true.. some remember the soaps from that one great summer with a baby sitter, but are too concerned with Britney's new album to recall the story line. when I talk to fellow students (weekly discussion in which many find entertaining), many claimed to have stopped watching for reasons beyond just access to the internet and availability of other shows. It just stopped remaining interesting, favorite characters were traded in for younger ones, favorite couple broke up, etc..Alot of the complaints I hear are writing related..IN the meantime, prime time was catering to what they needed: more humor, more diversity, better writing.

But IA, The ideas of sustainability just didn't keep up with technology in the same way it didn't keep up with the change in women's lives. The industry stopped swimming so long ago. The economy may turn out to be the cause of death, but these shows have been terminal for so long.

Weekend afternoons might not work, but I see no reason why networks should not be experimenting with different time slots. Of course, they should have done so 15-20 years ago, when soaps were still bringing in plenty of revenue but the decline in viewers was apparent. What would have happened in the early 90s, when All My Children had a household rating over 7.0 (and was only # 2 in the ratings) if ABC had aired it at 11 or 12 at night for a couple of weeks, in addition to during the day, just to see what would have happened? Maybe night owls (stereotypically, at least, being the younger viewers networks claim to want) would have decided it was more convenient to watch at that time, and if not then nothing would have been lost. At this point, for all I know a second airing of a daytime soap might bring in less viewers than whatever the networks air after the evening news, but maybe it's not too late to give it a try?

I also still like aspects of GL's production model in theory, if not in practice - I don't watch it, but for the life of me I don't understand why cheaper camera techniques were not introduced before abandoning sets and moving taping to somewhere where no actor would want to commute. I say keep the sets, but rethink them to make them more cost-effective. Where is it written in stone that soaps need to have at least one big party a week, with long hours for the crew and lots of extras milling around, to say nothing of contract actors being paid to stand in the background, in expensive eveningwear? I would rather sacrifice things like that than lose (or barely see) beloved castmembers, and I imagine it would be easier to find writers able to work within those kinds of superficial confines. Playwrights have been trained to create drama with minimal sets/props/extras, after all, but I don't know of any kind of writing classes that teach how to write the climax of a story without the main characters present.

I also agree with those who said soaps should reach out to the new at-home audiences. I bet some freelancers would watch soaps, maybe even ironically (at least at first), but why should they when their own love lives are probably more interesting than the staid, conservative romantic entanglements that still play out on soaps? I don't see how all of these unplanned pregnancy stories can possibly be interesting to young, educated (if they have that disposable income that advertisers supposedly want) viewers - if soaps really can't get away with being frank about birth control and abortion in 2008, then they should just have a decided lack of unexpected pregnancy stories and let knowing viewers assume that female characters are exercising their legal right to make decisions about their own bodies off-screen? And vetoing (or watering down) stories about non-heteronormative sexuality for fear of turning off aging housewives, while backburnering/firing the core cast members those longtime viewers want to see, is not going to make anyone happy. (Most 12-17 year olds probably do not care if Luke and Noah make out.) Meanwhile, if taping schedules were adjusted to make it truly possible for actors to work on soaps as day jobs while pursuing side projects, the telecommuters/freelancers might be inclined to tune in to check out actors they know from theatre and indie films, and those industries might even be persuaded to subsidize soaps by throwing some advertising dollars their way. Soaps should really be a haven for character actors.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong, but in that case the networks should just acknowledge that the soap audience is dying off and stop micromanaging the creative process, and allow these shows to go out with a little dignity and with the cast that those viewers have spent their lives watching in tact. The current attempt to attact a new audience (child characters being aged overnight and cast with inexperienced newcomers to play out the same stories that their parents and grandparents played out) is clearly not working.