Will the economic downturn finally be the death of soaps?

[DeliaIrisFan]

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.

[alphanguy74]

Don't be so sure that soaps are dying. Look at what happened to game shows. In 1975 you had:

Match Game

10,000$ Pyramid

High Rollers

Hollywood Squares

Name That Tune

The Money Maze

The Price Is Right

Wheel Of Fortune

Tattletales

Newlywed Game

Joker's Wild

Dating Game

By the mid 90's, you were left with Jeopardy, TPIR, and Wheel Of Fortune.

But in prime time, now game shows have made a big resurgence, and possibly even in daytime as well. They were replaced by such "trash talk" shows such as Ricki Lake, Jenny Jones, etc.... but the public TIRED of those, and the only ones who get the REALLY good ratings are Ellen and Oprah, the Mike Douglas, Merv, and Dinah of today. Soaps are TOO MUCH OF A TIME COMMITMENT, and need to go back to 30 minutes, and two 30 minute shows are NOT more expensive to produce, if they are shot live to tape. What are the networks going to do? Roll out 6 MORE judge shows?

[EricMontreal22]

"Soaps are TOO MUCH OF A TIME COMMITMENT, and need to go back to 30 minutes, and two 30 minute shows are NOT more expensive to produce, if they are shot live to tape."

That's simply not true. They are more expensive because it costs significantly more to fill an hour slot that needs to be filled with 2 30 minute soaps than one hour one--if thye filled the second half hour with some cheap news show or something I suppose you'd be right.

[MarkH]

I'm not sure I agree game shows have had a resurgence, but I'm not sure what you're putting in that category. I'm guessing you're lumping in things like "Survivor" with true game shows like "Biggest Loser".

I see very few ACTUAL game shows. I do think game shows have evolved into these reality hybrids, like American Idol. So THAT may be the answer: The evolution for a modern audience.

[marceline]

THANK YOU!! This is another reason I question the assumptions made about what "soap viewers want." People keep saying they want multigenerational storytelling and sweeping love stories but apparently that's only if those sweeping love stories don't involve same-sex or interracial couples. And none of those multiple generations of women have ever been to a Planned Parenthood. That's part of the reason those viewers have started watching L&O and ER.

[All My Shadows]

I wouldn't call neither one of those ("Survivor" or "The Biggest Loser") true game shows. Of course, there is a game involved, and it's a show, but I think that the reality element adds an entirely new dimension, with the contestant spending so much time living together and all that...it's not what I personally think of when I think of a traditional game show. Just my IMO.

But anyway, I think there has been some sort of resurgence of game shows in primetime, but they're all of the single-contestant-competing-towards-a-big-money-prize type. Your "Deal or No Deal," your "Don't Forget the Lyrics!," your "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" and all that. It works, and these shows are popular and successful, but they are all so similar in structure. They all came from the "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" mold.

Soaps and game shows need to go hand in hand in daytime, IMO. There are a good bit of successful syndicated game shows that play in the daytime ("Family Feud," "Jeopardy!," "Crosswords," "Millionaire"), but I still wish that there was a strong lineup of network games alongside the soaps. If I had my way, all soaps would get knocked down to a half-hour, but maybe Y&R would stay at 60 minutes since it was restructured to fit into that timeslot. Each network could have five or six hours of daytime, with a 50/50 split between soaps and games. I don't know...I've always been intrigued with daytime being a strong, viable entity within a network. Instead of being a syndication wasteland (not that everything there is waste), it could be a whole other world of television, where there's something brand new just about everyday, there's a completely different group of "TV stars," and everything is far removed from primetime.

[Faulkner]

I've NEVER understood why B&B hasn't capitalized on depicting the fashion industry with all of its drugs, cattiness, sexuality (and HOMOsexuality, especially - straight men in fashion are the minority). There's a lot to be mined there, and Brad Bell would rather focus on Ridge/Taylor/Brooke, Round 9725. But I get the feeling Bradley Bell's extremely socially conservative (odd, considering the depravity we see on B&B regularly).

[SteveFrame]

Going off some of the things posted here I have been saying for awhile that soap writers need to look at shows like Law & Order, ER, and even Nip/Tuck and Rescue Me. They need to look at the stories they are telling and quit tiptoeing around certain issues and just go for it.

Soaps have progressed to new heights over the years by being controversial and they survived such as Agnes Nixon introducting the mixed race storyline of Carla Gray/Bernudi to OLTL in 1968 or The Secret Storm doing the fallen priest story in the mid 70's or even Laura falling in love with her rapist on GH in 1979. As I stated in another post even the controversial stories of abortion for Pat Matthews and Erica Kane on AMC and AW were big slaps in the face to many viewers but they didn't kill their soaps.

If presented in the right way they should help to draw viewers to the shows. Soap writers and producers have got to get their balls back first though and not abandon the stories at the drop of a hat or the minute the first fan base goes off on them as they have done so often in the past few years.

So many times in the past writers took chances in telling stories or breaking up couples and they weathered the controversy and pressed on. Today's hacks don't have the balls to do that but they are going to need to get them back - if they don't soaps don't have one hell of a chance surviving.

[Faulkner]

I think part of it is the stereotype of the soap viewer - lower-income, uneducated, socially conservative, Midwestern/Southern rural housewives. The Nip/Tuck viewers are thought to be artsy, cultured, upscale East Coast urbanites who read newspapers and listen to critics - at least, that's who F/X markets to. But a lot of those Midwestern housewives are watching Nip/Tuck.

[All My Shadows]

ITA. The main mistake is that they still do things like the priest stuff and the rapes and the abortions, and they still pat themselves on the back because they think they're doing something cutting edge. Yeah, cutting edge for daytime maybe, but not television. Luke Snyder/NUKE is such a shitty little blip on the radar as far as gay teens on television are concerned, yet it was all hyped up into this big thing. If anything, daytime should have taken the initiative to move away from the "gay storyline" of a kid "struggling with his sexuality" or "confused about her sexuality." Doling out the same tired storyline isn't progress, it's stagnation. Progress is showing a gay character whose storylines aren't set up the way they are simply because of their sexuality. Look at Luke. Name me one storyline that he's had that his being gay wasn't a factor in. Exactly. Look at a show like "Skins" (a British teen drama) that premiered with a gay main character who never had a "coming out" storyline nor did he have to go through much gay-bashing or homophobia. He was treated just like the other characters, basically, and on this show, that pretty much required him to be very sexual, which he was. When you can get something like that, watching Luke Snyder constantly drag his "boyfriend" out of the closet seems not only tame, but also excruciatingly boring.

[All My Shadows]

Yes indeed. My great aunt recently turned 66 years old, so she's an older black woman, raised in the deeeeeeeeep South, and not extremely religious, but religious enough. This woman *loves* "Melrose Place" and to this day, to this very day, I just do not get the connection lol And don't even get me started on my "thug" of a male cousin who loves "Mama's Family." People would be surprised at who really watches certain shows.

[alphanguy74]

Well, maybe your cousin has a thing for older broads??? LOL ! Vicki Lawrence is just so damn funny that I think most everyone loves Mama, I don't see that as too out of the ordinary. Ericmontreal, when I was talking about a 30 minute show being cheaper to produce, I didn't mean that in realtion to the advertizing dollars the network gleans form those shows airing back to back... I meant strictly the production costs. That means you can get a lower license fee from the network and still be profitable. Another of my main points about the game shows, even in their darkest hour, there were STILL 3 of the biggest ones left. I don't think soaps will DIE COMPLETELY, but I do see the day when we are left with only 2 or 3. There are alot of people who love soaps, so I don't understand WHY when some soaps drop off, other soaps don't gain viewers? Logic says they should. If they would cut DOOL and GL loose, and take OLTL , ATWT, and AMC down to 30 minutes, and THEN see how things fare. That would free up an extra hour or airtime each day for all 3 networks, so maybe they'd be satisfied with that for at least 5 years, and it would give opporotunity for the networks to see that the shows they replace the soaps with will fare NO BETTER in the ratings. Today's audeince has too much to choose from, and once that pie is cut into 32 pieces, it's very hard to get it back into the standard 8. HOWEVER, if the economy gets worse, it can do NOTHING but help the soaps (At least when it comes to ratings). People in desperate financial straits are already starting to cut back their expenses, and the first to go it always the CABLE BILL, you all may not be aware of this, but sales of Over the air antennas are exploding like a SUPERNOVA, one major manufacturer here in Missouri is reporting growth of 100% (doubling of business) every 6 months. This, and unemployed people with time on their hands can do nothing but help the soaps, and the networks. How many people have you all known that got hooked on soaps when they were out of work, or laid up after surgery, or some such thing? But, you also ahve the double edged sword of advertizers not spending the dollars they once did. IMO, the network needs to sell MORE commercial space in daytime, instead of the UMPTEENTH promo for their primetime lineup!! Do we see daytime promos in primetime? RARELY.

[miajere]

I can testify to the freelancers- My average day doesn't start until after 5.... unless I'm meeting up with someone else who's at home during the weekday, have a class, or have an appointment. Both my parents work from home, and they have friends who watch Y&R because they work from home.

These networks either haven't done their research, or don't consider us in their target demographic.

Yeah, but Nip/Tuck doesn't leave anyone out of its line up. Think about all the demographics that have been neglected by the soap network. These shows could get that broad variety audience if they weren't so narrow in who they wish to target in their demographic. Look at who's showcased in Nip/Tuck- and all perspectives are aired, with no interruption. They also showcase the characters they want the audience to invest in, and leave the rest to recurring. Daytime leaves a huge portion of the American audience out of their lineup and story telling, and rely on the same stories to strike a chord.

[DaytimeFan]

Brad Bell's NOT socially conservative. He donated over $10,000 to Barack Obama's campaign and also kicked in money to Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell's senate campaigns. He's only donated to the Republican party once, in 2000 and it was to the state elections committee, not a presidential campaign.

Bill Bell, although a supporter of the Republican party, also supported Democrat candidates as well like Nicholas Lampson, a Texan Congressman.

Lee and Bill Bell are NOT bible thumping Republicans. They are Reagan Republicans, it's about money and taste. Nancy Reagan has plenty of gay friends, so do the Bells, they have several who are on their shows! Bill Bell tried a lesbian storyline with Katherine Chancellor in the 1970s for God's sake! The negative reaction to that storyline, I believe, is what put the Bells off that sort of storytelling. They don't want to alienate their conservative audience.

That said, I think B&B really struck gold in the early 2000s when you had Antonio and Sofia, both Hispanic and heavily involved in the fashion industry. Brad is simply fixated on the Forresters, the show should feature models, designers, addicts, artists, gay and straight, all races...but he's fixated on the Forresters, he's afraid to take a chance.

[miajere]

Unfortunately, all this information does is change BBell from socially conservative, to just traditional. I can understand not wanting to play fast and loose with your long time characters- but is it a crime to introduce new characters and experiment with them. No one's asking for Rick to wake up gay tomorrow; but if that cast wasn't so monolithic, maybe we wouldn't be looking at the same old. I don't care who he golfs with on the weekends, as long as he tells a good story- which he only does 6 months out of the year.