Why do "new" soaps...

[David V]

I was having a think about this. Of all the soaps currently on air only one- Bold & the Beautiful- is younger than 35 years. Of the other soaps that were created after 1973, only Ryan's Hope and Loving were able to last more than a decade while Santa Barbara and Passions (if you count its run on DirecTV) each lasted 9 years. Has it been really that hard for newly created shows to gain more of a foothold in competition with more established, mature shows? And up to 10 years ago, the soap genre was still considered viable enough for new shows to be created- as Sunset Beach, Port Charles and Passions all showed.

Some were doomed either by poor writing and/or acting, but others were doomed by scheduling where they never stood a chance (Lovers and Friends/For Richer, For Poorer being a good example).

Ryan's Hope lasted 14 years on air and garnered decent ratings for half of that and critical acclaim throughout with a slew of Daytime Emmy wins. In fact, Helen Gallagher won her Emmy the year prior to the show's cancellation (similarly, Anna Holbrook and Charles Keating won Emmys for their work on AW 3 years prior to that show's cancellation). However, scheduling changes in 1984 led to the show being effectively on life support for the last 5 years of its existence.

That scheduling change prolonged the life of Loving, which spent several years doing enough to avoid cancellation- as did Santa Barbara.

Texas was in practice doomed from the start- by all accounts, the quality of cast in its first year- apart from the inimitable Beverlee McKinsey- was a killer factor and even though the show improved later on it was in vain. It didn't help that it was on NBC at a time when the network was in serious trouble.

Capitol, as we all know, got the highest numbers for a newly created soap but even that faded, with fan sources citing the quality of the show going down the toilet in its last year or two.

Sunset Beach and Port Charles debuted in the same year- 1997- but Port Charles lasted 6 years while Sunset Beach lasted little over 2. Once more, Port Charles was actually doing enough for a couple of years to prolong its existence- better than Sunset Beach and then even Passions for its first year IIRC- but even that ran out. Many of these lesser-rated soaps either became international hits, or attracted intensely devoted cult followings. In fact, the same can be said even of a long-running show like Another World- numbers weren't high but fan devotion was intense.

So it brings us to the Bold & the Beautiful. The only soap created after 1973 still on air today. What has been the secret to its success? Has it been the Bells alone? It can't be, since even having big name writers is no guarantee of success for a new show as Harding Lemay's L&F/FRFP and Agnes Nixon and Douglas Marland's Loving prove. The backing of a strong Daytime network helps- for CBS was usually the most consistent. More than anything, B&B had the good luck of starting in between two of the network's highest-rated shows, Y&R and ATWT- if it had been on anywhere else, would it have stood a chance?

[DaytimeFan]

Never underestimate the determination and true grit of the Bells...unlike Loving, Ryan's Hope, Port Charles and Passions, B&B is not a network owned soap and unlike Santa Barbara and Sunset Beach it wasn't owned by a few production companies, instead, it is a family business...the first few years of B&B did not make money for the Bells, the production company went into debt which is why they sought out foreign sales which, as luck would have it, turned into the greatest business decision they ever could have made as it has made them a true fortune.

I feel it's the patience the Bells were able to have with their show which has led to its longevity. Certainly, a plum spot between Y&R and ATWT helped matters as well as relatively strong writing for more than a decade. B&B's ratings were always rather good...so CBS had no issues, the Bells bit their lips for a few years as they paid off their debts and then reaped the financial windfall of their Juggernaut show.

Essentially, it is a mixture of no network interference, no Hollywood bullsh*t and plain old luck that resulted in B&B becoming the hit it is in the United States and throughout the world.

[David V]

Also, the crossover storylines with Y&R in '92 helped raise the show's ratings and profile a great deal.

[CSF]

What initially hurt Ryan's Hope were the recasts in the beginning. However, the show won the award for Outstanding Drama Series in 1977 and 1979, early on in it's run, considering it began in 1975. It also won the award for Outstanding Writing six times. I think it was in 1982/1983 when the show went downhill. I believe it was around that time that ABC bought the show outright from Claire Labine and Paul Avila Mayer. It was ABC's influence at that time that really damaged the show. In 1982, ABC fired Labine and Mayer and the new writers began changing the focus of the show away from the Ryan family. It also didn't help matters that ABC moved the show from 12:30 to 12:00pm, giving Loving it's former time period. When it was moved to 12:00pm, many east coast affiliates aired it a day behind at 11:30 so they could air local news at noon.

ABC rehired Labine and Mayer when ratings dropped in 1983 but then soon fired them again. They were rehired once more and fired once more before Labine wrote the show for it's final seasons, along with her daughter Eleanor. Ratings did increase when Labine and Mayer returned.

I think that if ABC did not have any creative influence over the show and if they let Labine and Mayer remain there initially and not move the show from it's 12:30 time period, Ryan's Hope was a successful show. It's possible that if ABC didn't screw things up, it could still be on the air today, not to mention giving All My Children a healthy lead in.

[David V]

Yup, Ryan's Hope saw its numbers decline from about 1982, but it wasn't until 1984 with the timeslot switch that led to the show's fate being effectively sealed. Once a show has a drop like that, it's almost impossible to recover from although both Days and AW did just that, at around the same time we're talking here.

Notice as well that during 1985 and possibly into 1986, Loving got its best ever ratings after the switch took place.

[CSF]

When Ryan's Hope premiered, it aired at 1pm for almost 2 years before being moved to 12:30. All My Children was moved from 1pm to 12:30 to act as a good lead-in for RH. I wonder, if AMC had remained at 12:30 and expanded to 1 hour and ABC moved Ryan's Hope to 1:30 with OLTL at 2 and GH at 3, if this would have been an even harder challenge for CBS to defeat. I'm sure NBC would have remained at the bottom, regardless.

You have to remember, AMC was always in the top 3 from late 70s (number 1 in 1978) to mid-80s and top 4 until 1990 when it was at number 2 for several years (up until 1994 I think). Considering if AMC were to air at that time from 12:30-1:30 directly opposite Y&R, how that would have affected Y&R's rise to the top. Not to mention if RH was airing at 1:30 already successful from years of a good lead-in, if B&B would have ever defeated RH.

Also, if I remember correctly, Agnes Nixon wanted Loving to air in-between AMC and OLTL. I really don't know why ABC didn't allow that.

[David V]

With Love of Life's cancellation in 1980, CBS was down to just the 4 shows which were still doing well if overshadowed by the ABC juggernaut. ABC had 3 powerhouse shows, 1 decently-rating one and 1 ailing show. NBC went from 3 competitive shows to 2 struggling and 1 critically ailing show and another that never stood a chance.

ABC's interference in its shows became far more noticeable in recent times (last ~10 years) but NBC's interference effectively ended what was potentially its best post-70s lineup. NBC would at least have become competitive with the other two given time.

[bellcurve]

I also read in a book somewhere that Lee Phillip Bell personally went to almost every single market in the country that wasn't airing B&B and had face to face meetings with them. I doubt you will see any network executive or liaison for any of these other shows asking why they aren't airing the new show in town. I think that would have been far more beneficial to the longevity of these shows as well.

I don't think it was production companies that hurt these new shows. I think some were victims of not being given time to grow(The City, Generations, Swans Crossing), while others, including some in the previous parenthethical, tried to "change" what the medium was about. You can't make a soap opera into Friends or Melrose Place. I think some of these shows learned that lesson too late.

And Passions, even though people applaud it for being traditional and/or supernatural and off the beaten path, I still, to this day, don't believe Reilly set out to make Passions a New England Sunset Beach. I think, after he saw the way the critics panned the show and how the show's special effects looked to viewers, that was when he decided to change course and make it more ridiculous and campy. I believe Passions suffered from a similar identity crisis. It tried to straddle the lines between goth, humor, and soap. It worked on DAYS, because there was a checks and balance system there with Langan and Corday. When left to his own devices, Reilly was ridiculous and out of control.

I also think it's the soap community(from print to fans) and their inability to accept anything new. Just look at Spyder Games and the MyNetworkTV novelas as examples of that. Both were cheaply produced shows, but I don't think they offered any different than what other shows were offering. In fact, I'd take the last month of Desire anyday over what passes for mob drama on GH.

Soaps can make a comeback, just like game shows, sitcoms, etc. It just may take awhile and it may take that one show to spark the interest in the genre again.

[DavidEvanSmith]

I think as much as todays Executive Producers would want us to think otherwise, HAVING a history with the audience is key to the soap's success. New shows have a harder time because they are starting fresh, new characters, no backstory and very often times it's the backstory that provides the resonance and adds weight to the drama happening.

For any new soap it's difficult because the audience doesn't have historical reference. The characters are mostly blank canvases and if the soap doesn't have a clear idea as to who these characters are, and are constantly rewriting the character to fit the plot, then the audience will have a hard time getting a handle on the characters and connecting with them. I think the older soaps like Ryan's Hope and Loving remained character driven for much of their time and started with very clearly developed characters that maintained a consistency in how they were written. That's why they lasted over a decade, and longer than the next generation of soaps like Sunset Beach, Port Charles, and Passions. Those shows were MUCH more plot driven.

I was surprised PC didn't last longer than it did, but I blame Frons on that. But at least it started as a spinoff, where at least the veterans Lucy, Kevin, and Scott had a history that GH fans could anchor themselves with and carry with them to PC. I think where most of PC went wrong was that the interns weren't clearly defined, and there was so much focus on them. Some were just bland and disappeared quickly (Jake Marshak with his little blowup doll, Danielle), others had histories developed that were so convoluted that we didn't know who they were (Greg Cooper, Julie Devlin), and others were polluted with unnecessary recasts that weakened the audience's connection to stories that were working (Joe, Karen). The characters that were strongest rose to the top and lasted for most or all of the show's run (Chris, Eve, Frank), though Frank suffered a lot of character rewrites and redefinitions. And the other problem in the start of PC that much of what happened with Scott, Lucy, and Kevin happened in a bubble and the interns were separate, in their own world. Only really Eve managed to cross into that sphere and take hold. Julie to a lesser degree with baby Christina. But once the "interns" phase of the show was over and it kicked off its very clearly different "supernatural" phase, then the next problem was that they never established clear rules about vampirism and stuck to them, so the audience couldn't necessarily understand the ramifications of stories there, either. The last year of the show was its most desperate, and it showed. Karen killed, Kevin thrown over in favor of Ian Thornhart, the Livvie/Caleb/Alison/Rafe quad that swallowed the show...

Any new show has a tough job to establish themselves, but they need to start with SOLID, character defining stories that will teach the audience about who the characters are and very CLEARLY how they all feel about each other. The audience needs to be in on all the mysteries, at least at the start, so they can be allowed to get attached. If too much is not established, or too much is being hidden from the audience, they can't connect. PC started with one good EPISODE, the hostage situation with the interns, because life and death situations tend to highlight all the good and bad within characters, but the follow-through wasn't strong enough and the initial stories were trite. The initial stories for all characters are the stories that will shape the audience's initial opinions about the characters, so they are VERY important. From there, the stories and characters need to weave together and all those characters who didn't feel one way or another about each other need to have those moments to shape those relationships and the audience will feel like they are watching the history unfold.

I wasn't around for the premiere of ANY of the current soaps that are remaining on-air, but when I read about OLTL's debut, when Dr. Ted Hale died in the first episode, it sounded like they started their soap in the middle of a story, and that's what I think is smartest. The audience can watch it continue to unfold, and still learn the pieces of the story that brought them to the point they started from. When I started crafting Beyond the Horizon, I tried to start in the middle of stories, and pick a beat or a moment to start from that showed the characters at their most raw and real. The first two months (November, December) were establishing characters and relationships, and the third month (January, New Years Eve exactly) started intersecting different stories to roll out the exploration of relationships between the fleshed out characters. The first few months should always be set aside to establish the romances and family dynamics. By New Years, two stories collided in a car crash that heightened all the established drama and spun it in a new direction, took it to a new level.

How you start a new soap will be key to the when and how of it's end.

[CSF]

Reading what you said about Port Charles makes me wonder, what if Claire Labine was given the green light with Heart & Soul, what that would have been like and would it still be on the air today? Especially since I don't think Claire Labine would have sold it outright to ABCD.

It's too bad ABC didn't pick up the Labine soap and also at the same time pick up Port Charles, but in the form of a primetime soap, the way CBS did with Our Private World which was a spinoff of As the World Turns.

[David V]

Well hasn't B&B for instance created its back history over time? They fundamentally changed it when Ridge became Massimo's son.

[bellcurve]

IIRC, Heart and Soul would have been an ABC Daytime venture. She may have had co-ownership of the show(with a clause in there for creative control, like Reilly at Passions), but there is no way the network would have given up GH characters for Labine to reap full financial benefits from. Labine was pitching her project(then known as Union Place) to NBC and I even heard she pitched it to PGP after NBC and the first go-round with ABC(I think they were choosing between her bible and The City).

It would have been weird seeing a Labine soap on NBC, especially having watched Ryan's Hope and assorted clips of her GH, knowing what she was about. No wonder NBC passed on it for Sunset Beach, although I think that show would have done alot for NBC's profile. But we all know NBC wanted a DAYS-esque companion to fit into the lineup. So Union Place probably would have been cancelled to accomodate Passions or a DAYS spinoff anyway.

And without restating what DavidEvanSmith has said, WORD X 1000 to your post, sir.

There's a difference between creating your back history and completely rewriting it.

[CSF]

Didn't Labine also pitch another soap for CBS in the 80s called Celebration? I remember reading that, but know nothing else about it.

[bellcurve]

I heard about that somewhere. But I have no information about the bible or when she pitched it.

[DeliaIrisFan]

Most of this has been said already, but I think that soaps have been bleeding viewers for decades, so it's not surprising that no new soap in twenty plus years has been able to lure in enough viewers to stay on the air in the long run. It's not like a primetime show where you see lots of ads for a show that look interesting and it's such a small time investment that the pilot episode can draw in droves of viewers - and it's been so long since a new soap has succeeded that even if a show were somehow following a proven pattern of building an audience, who is working in network programming that would even recognize it? Y&R is the newest non-spinoff to still be on the air, and it debuted before the sexual revolution was over. A lot of women were still home in 1973, and there were only so many channels to watch. Even later in the '70s, women were entering the workforce, but not all of them had, so a show like Ryan's Hope that was so well-structured and planned could still build a respectable audience in the standard demographic. If ABC had left it alone creatively and timeslot-wise, I have no doubt it would have lasted even lot longer. B&B launched in the '80s, when many more women were working but a lot of the women who were not working 10 years earlier still were at home during the day. What happened? It is still on the air today, but it's always skewed older in the demographics. And it benefitted from cross-pollination of some of Y&R's most popular characters, which no other new show has been able to manage. Since then, all the soaps have been losing viewers, so why would anyone start watching something new when they were giving up the shows they'd watched for years because they no longer had the time to watch? It's interesting that the two newest shows, Y&R and B&B have also been the most consistent, so there has also probably been a strong incentive for viewers who were there in the beginning to keep watching. Compare that to PC, which lasted little more than five years and changed so drastically.

Honestly, it's an interesting paradox... As much as I hate how a show like AW was changed in its later years to be more like DAYS (which was itself a far cry from its original vision), these hour-long shows have already lost most of their original identities that made them unique. So, with viewership trends being generally downward and each existing show having a core audience that only declines a little each year, it probably was a bad idea to launch any new show after 1990 at the latest. Pretty much anything that anyone has done with a new show in that time could have been grafted onto an existing show and retained much of its core audience. Of course, actually retaining the aspects of a longtime show that its existing viewers want to see while introducing new elements to appeal to new viewers is far too difficult a juggling act for any network to have pulled off in a long, long time.

And yes, I would have loved to have seen Claire Labine's GH spinoff, but sad to say I know what would have happened: It wouldn't have been an immediate ratings hit, ABC would have panicked, it would not be on the air today and in the mean time the Labines would have been forced out and Ned and Lois would have been the ones fighting vampires. It happened with RH twenty years earlier, when there was still much more of the traditional soap audience at home during the day and far less competition for their attention, so I don't see how it could have happened differently.

The existing soaps have failed to adapt to the change in demographics of viewers who are home during the day - the only thing that ever worked even temporarily was when kids who were home during the summer started watching GH in droves in the '70s/'80s, and every soap has been going back to that well every summer since with little success - so how could any new show stand a chance?