Why do "new" soaps...

[CSF]

I think that with good writing, quality acting, a decent time period and patience with no network interference, and good promotion, a new soap would be okay.

There was a lot of talk on this board about the lows AMC hit when B&E where the headwriters in 2007 and 2008. We all know that B&E suck but one thing is certain, AMC no longer has a lead in. I'm not saying they may not have hit those lows with a lead in, but they many not have been "as" low.

On the east coast, local news airs at noon. A lot of people watch it. In cities like NYC and Philly, their noon news on the ABC stations are double that of the CBS stations. If AMC aired at 12:30 after local news (much like Y&R), that would be a good lead in because even if the people watching the news aren't going to stay for AMC, they may not be so inclined to change the channel if they don't have anything else to watch. A strong local news cast is a better lead in than a syndicated game show or some lame paid programming.

If ABC took some time and could keep their damn hands out of the cookie jar and create a new daytime drama to air in Port Charles' former time period that is realistic and just invest some time into it to form an audience, it could retain some potentially strong numbers and be a good lead in for AMC and the rest of ABCD. Like when Y&R does great, the rest of the CBS-D lineup increases its numbers.

Maybe NBC might take a lesson too from this.

Like I said above, good writing, quality acting, a decent time period and patience with no network interference, and good promotion is essential to a new soap. If you have the right formula, give it time to grow and when it grows it will prosper, and with that, you get your return.

[Paul Raven]

Also,once the soaps went to an hour,there were fewer time slots to fill-that is another factor.By 1980,CBS had 3 hour shows,which potentially would have been 6 shows a few years before.

I have also read that in the mid 70's several of the top rating shows were game shows,but I have never seen a daytime Top 10 from that time that includes all programming,not just soaps.

Does anyone have any ratings from that time?

[bellcurve]

B&B was a non-spinoff too.

I also think the problem is that the networks(and fans) have no idea when to let go of the old shows either.

How long can OLTL, AMC, and GH truly last on ABC? How long can ATWT and GL survive constant massive budget cuts?

I would be glad if AMC were replaced with DAYS or a new soap. Or if ATWT and GL were both cancelled for a new show. Daytime needs a shakeup.

[UKBoi]

I wonder if, in the long term, GL's new cost effective production model could give more hope for new daytime dramas. If ABC really wants to do something 'young' with their daytime lineup, why not bring out a younger-oriented show, tape it like The Hills and see what happens. Then those viewers who start watching over summer vacation would end up picking it up and growing up with the characters. Kind of like a One Tree Hill in daytime. Of course, given how quick younger actors are to jump ship at soaps, the threat of recasts and the like would pose a problem.

[EastMA2]

Paul - I have a Daytime TV Magazine from July 1976 that lists the ratings for the week ending March 28, 1976. Sorry if the format isn't the best. Top 10 Serials: ATWT 10.3/38 Y&R 9.1/37 AW 9.1/31 GL 9.0/35 SFT 8.8/35 DAYS 7.6/28 LOL 7.5/34 DOCTORS 7.3/28 AMC 7.3/28 EON 6.7/23 Game Shows: Match Game '76 9.6/31 Pyramid 6.7/25 Price is Right 6.5/34 Hollywood Squares 6.5/29 Wheel 6.2/31

I have more issues but that is just 1 from that time frame. Granted it's only 1 week, but soaps ruled that week.

[DeliaIrisFan]

I've never followed it for a long time, let alone from the beginning, so maybe I misspoke and it was not technically a Y&R spinoff. But I do know enough about soap history to know that it benefited a great deal from crossovers from # 1-rated Y&R. I believe it reached its highest ratings during the Sheila/Lauren story? That's a benefit no other new shows got until PC.

Well, as I said, just about every new soap in the past two decades has debuted with lower ratings than any other soap on the air - except Passions, when they debuted with marginally higher ratings than other recently premiered shows which were airing on less affiliates. As for AMC being canceled for DAYS, every time a soap has switched networks it lost millions of viewers in the process, so I don't see that being a good idea. Maybe it wouldn't matter so much in this case, because probably most of the people still watching DAYS watch it on SoapNet or online if they do any streaming broadcast like ABC and CBS do.

But no, I think canceling a 35-year show like AW in favor of a show about a witch and a doll that came to life that lasted less than a decade and spent its last year on public access cable or something, and firing vets on the remaining shows to the extent where they are unrecognizable, has been more than enough shake-up. The existing shows should go out with dignity, if they are on their way out, and if (when) the genre returns in some form there is absolutely no reason in the 21st century that it needs to be on network TV in the afternoons (and a number of reasons why it should not be, like the executives in charge of the daypart who have made such catastrophic decisions that have brought us to this point).

[DeliaIrisFan]

Maybe, but if they could keep their hands out of the cookie jar with regards to the current shows, then I bet they could not only introduce new components slowly that could do the same - while writing for the veterans and luring back lapsed viewers. The problem is they won't, and their desperation seems to be at its worst with the newest, lowest rated shows. Even GL, as drastically as it has changed in the past decade, has not been permanently broken up into self-contained twelve-week stories, each featuring Reva slaying vampires. Yet.

[DavidEvanSmith]

Wow, GL wouldn't hit a 9.0 again if Jesus Christ chose to make a cameo appearance.

[David V]

Love of Life had a revival around 1975-76. The show was in real danger in the early 70s when its ratings pretty much hit rock bottom, but the brief revival gave it a stay of execution, before the bottom completely fell out again in the late 70s. Jean Holloway was writing for them for a short while, which I understand was highy unpopular with the fans.

[leevo64]

What if Otalia went topless?

[bellcurve]

No. But GL has had alot of very self contained episodes, i.e. Inside the Light. And alot of GL's episodes in the beginning of the production model were very primetime-y and self-contained.

Desperation is very unbecoming.

[CSF]

Just a quick thought. I remember reading a long time ago that B&B was supposed to be titled Rags and was about a Chicago newspaper publisher. If this is correct or somewhat along the lines of what Bell intended before B&B surfaced, I wonder what that would have been like.

Anyone have any info on this?

[Paul Raven]

I have read about the 'Rags' title for B&B but I believe it was strictly a working title.

Never heard of the newspaper theme before.

[CSF]

I'm pretty sure that it was supposed to be a newspaper themed soap. Rags being a newspaper that specializes in sensational news stories, very gossipy.

That doesn't mean that was the original bible of B&B because I don't remember the details about it. It could have been that there was an idea about a second Bell soap on CBS prior to B&B's creation and that was the concept.

Any ideas?

[bellcurve]

In the Anniversary Book, it was said that Bill and Lee Phillip Bell came up with the skeleton for the story(i.e. the families) and pitched the general idea to CBS. Bill Bell Jr. came up with the idea to set the show in the world of the Fashion Industry. And it was supposed to be set in Chicago.

The story I heard was that the show was always supposed to be called Rags and it was supposed to be set in the fashion industry. But I believe CBS wanted them to name the show as a companion to Y&R.

I've never heard the newspaper angle, although it doesn't surprise me. Lee Bell was a journalist.