CBS Shopping for ‘Light’ Replacement

Network Weighs Fate of Long-Running Soap

By Josef Adalian

CBS may soon decide to pull the plug on “Guiding Light,” the longest-running daytime drama in television history.

While no final decision has been made, the network’s deal for the Procter & Gamble-produced drama—the least watched of the eight daytime serials currently on the air—ends in September. But if CBS does drop “Guiding Light,” it likely would lock in a decision within the next month, people familiar with the matter said. That would give writers a chance to tie up storylines.

CBS also would need to finalize new programming for the daytime hour that “Guiding Light” would be vacating.

In the most significant indication that the network is seriously pondering life without “Guiding Light,” CBS has been talking to outside studios about potential replacement programming for the show, sources said.

Possibilities under discussion include both game shows and talk shows. CBS could easily cut its programming costs for the hour in half by switching away from a scripted drama.

Representatives for CBS and P&G declined comment.

In addition to contracting with an outside studio for programming to replace “Light,” CBS daytime chief Barbara Bloom has been developing possible in-house candidates for the soap opera’s slot.

CBS executives are taking their time deciding the fate of “Light,” which has survived more than 70 years on radio and television. P&G also produces the CBS soap “As the World Turns.”

Nonetheless, a decision by CBS to end “Light’s” run on the network wouldn’t be a surprise.

The serial has been the subject of cancellation rumors for the better part of a decade. Those rumors became particularly intense within the past 18 months, but P&G threw something of a Hail Mary pass last year when it implemented a radical reworking of “Light’s” production model.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the show ditched its traditional storytelling style in favor of a lower-cost model that also was intended to give the show a more realistic, less staged feel. Around the same time, CBS renewed “Light” for the current season, retaining an option for an additional season.

Ratings for the show haven’t improved since the switch. “Light” is averaging a 0.9 rating among women 18-49 and a 1.6 household rating, according to Nielsen. Season-to-date, it’s averaging 2.17 million viewers and a 0.9 rating in women 18-49; season-to-season, it’s down 18% in viewers and down 25% in the demographic.

“Light” began life as a radio soap opera, moving to CBS television.

Moving to the Web?

It’s possible P&G or CBS could attempt to keep the show alive in some form on the Internet, though doing so likely would require another radical reinvention of its production model.

Much of the daytime drama business is struggling, with ratings for most soaps down significantly over the past decade. NBC is down to one soap, “Days of Our Lives,” following the decision to dump “Passions” in 2007 (the show survived one more season on DirecTV).

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/cbs_sho...ght_replace.php

Edited March 30, 200916 yr by JackPeyton

Or maybe we simply want them to wait until GL no longer profitable or watchable before they throw away 72 years of history. It's unwatchable to some but it's improved significantly for others and if they are enough to keep it in the black, it should stay on.

GL may be profitable, but by how MUCH?! The ratings have taken a nosedive since this new production model and a 1.8, although that may be an achievable ambition, is simply not enough to sustain a soap! And that was before the economy took a nose dive.

What if GL has to take yet another paycut? Will they do the whole show outdoors, with beds and couches in that little grass field? Or will they do a sponsorship with a Motel6 and do most of the shooting there?

How exactly will cancelling the Grande Dame of daytime "restore integrity to the daytime lineup"? I don't get that rationale at all. There is not some grand renaissance waiting in the shadows that will revolutionlize, modernize, and conquer daytime if only GL would get out of the way. The history, the connection the viewer has to the whole tapestry of the show over time is the entire draw of soaps no one has as much to draw on as GL.

Because GL looks like S-H-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-T! Period. That's why! And I know opinions are subjective and that we are all entitled to ours and all that jazz, and that you think I am wrong, but GL looks like crap. Period.

And how long will this "return to drama" stick around before Ellen Wheeler thinks of something more innovative or decides to return to the "Inside the Lights" that you we loved so much towards the end?

If CBS can find a cheaper and, again, more attractive alternative to GL, then why not go for it? I'd rather see a boring CBS version of The View or "The Julie Chen Show" anyday over GL. At least they'll have a shot at technical awards.

It certainly doesn't besmirch the "integrity" of daytime whatever that is. Certainly not anywhere near as much as GH being dominated by woman-hating gangsters, AMC turning into a misogynistic cellpool as well, DOOL firing it's most identifiable star and pushing a bunch of talentless underwear models instead, B&B recycling incest in a neverending-loop if ick, or Elizabeth Hassleback glorifying idiocy on a daily basis.

mmmmk.

It depends on the affiliate, I guess. But since almost all of CBS's big market stations are own & operated by them, it won't happen without their express approval. Since virtually all channels who air GL at 9 or 10 AM are O&O's, the possibility is even less likely. The replacement will be either network-aired or at least network approved and syndicated. Plus, in the areas of the country where GL is weakest ratings-wise all of CBS daytime is dwarfed by ABC's lineup so replacing GL might not do a darn thing for CBS in those markets anyway.

And if the O&O's are sick of GL, then CBS will likely give their express approval. Maybe that is the case right now?

I find it hard to see why the hell Bloom would want a View clone on CBS. The show is a bad joke that only works because the bizarre and very specific interactions of it's co-hosts. Without each element working together, there's nothing there. NBC has their version and nobody watches because there no controversy. Manufactured controversy doesn't work so CBS can't try too hard to find their own Hasselback, Behar, etc. ABC hasn't killed their soaps to make room for it either. It precedes them all. Plus, if The View is someone's cup of tea, why would they bother watching some contrived knock-off when they could just watch the original in the first place?

Who says it has to be a View clone? Why couldn't it be Bob Scheiffer(who saw ratings increase during his time at the Evening News) in a daily-stripped "Face the Nation" or Lara Logan interviewing politicians and talking about women's health issues and pimping out 60 Minutes and the CBS Evening News?

And those millions of people can watch NBC's Today show extensions, or any one of the five 24-hour news and talk cable networks, one of the several human-interest oriented networks, or reruns elsewhere. I just don't see a huge, unfilled need here for a View clone on CBS.

And I guess we soap fans can just watch SOAPnet, Hulu.com, and YouTube for our enjoyment. I don't get why there ISN'T a need for relevant programming about current events and/or women's health. Whether it's in the package of four women at a table talking or a single host?

The answer to that is simple: CBS shouldn't be dumb enough to cancel GL unless there is a viable, workable, and profitable alternative. Handing the hour over to the affiliates across the board is simply not an option especially since most of CBS's biggest affiliates are wholly-owned subsidiaries. The network would still be responsible for programming in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Dallas-Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Denver, and Miami.

And talkshows have proven to be viable, workable, and profitable alternatives. Just ask the late Roger King(Oprah, Dr. Phil) or Barbara Walters/Brian Frons. And so have gameshows.

Hogwash. The soap genre and daytime television itself as we've known it are all dying at roughly the same rate as GL. The entire daytime genre has become so irrelevent that they had to go to some upstart channel to air their awards show. Daytime can cut off it's nose to spite it's face, but it's not gonna get it anywhere. It's not as if AMC, GH, and ATWT are just lighting the world on fire but GL is the singular black-sheep blemishing the radiance of bright shining glory. They're all in big trouble and it is a slippery slope. Passions was irrelevent on many levels so it's cancellation really made little dent but GL is the Grande Dame, like it or not, and it's demise will be the official beginning of the end and the rest will not be far behind. GH is only .2 ratings points ahead of GL right now in HH, costs far more money to produce and publicize, and completely sucks.

Maybe GL's cancellation will force lower-rated soaps to get in gear and churn out good story before it's too late.

"Letting Go..."

I think syndicated programming will likely take GL's slot with affiliates should GL ever get canceled...

no problem il turn the lights out as long as it's Brian Fronz's lights that dick

I think ION network should pick it up and air it in PRIME TIME and see what happens (CW is too youth oriented, and cable channels don't air everywhere). GL may be a failure according to the networks... but maybe they just need to move and become a big fish in a smaller pond?

I think syndicated programming will likely take GL's slot with affiliates should GL ever get canceled...

Without a doubt that will be the case. Considering almost all the CBS O&O stations air Dr. Phil in GL's 3pm time period, CBS would put their own new creation, may it be a talk show, on a 10am, the time the O&O stations air GL. 3pm will become local station time. It would be like a switch. It also makes more sense that way because if CBS can come up with a new ratings grabbing show for the morning, it could help out TPIR and maybe the rest of their daytime line up as opposed to being their last show of the afternoon.

Because GL looks like S-H-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-T! Period. That's why! And I know opinions are subjective and that we are all entitled to ours and all that jazz, and that you think I am wrong, but GL looks like crap. Period.

I think one could make a good argument that soaps have "looked like [!@#$%^&*]" for the great majority of their lifespans. Hell, GL was on the air when the only "production value" was a person's imagination. And through the early tv years when the soaps were shot in poorly designed and sparsely decorated sets that periodically fell during production. But the stories were so good that viewers never minded the production. Admittedly, storytelling is a big problem with GL even now, but as others have said, there HAS been marked improvement. There's plenty of areas that MUST improve in order for the show to be even close to as good as it was, but it should be given the chance. After all, I think most of us are talking only another year. I think that's enough to see if the show can improve. After all, I think we can all agree that longterm improvement is the only way a show can save itself.

How exactly will cancelling the Grande Dame of daytime "restore integrity to the daytime lineup"? I don't get that rationale at all. There is not some grand renaissance waiting in the shadows that will revolutionlize, modernize, and conquer daytime if only GL would get out of the way. The history, the connection the viewer has to the whole tapestry of the show over time is the entire draw of soaps no one has as much to draw on as GL.

I completely agree! I've seen some of the posts in this and the other thread about the future and I have to say: bullshit! We say that daytime needs to be overhauled and renovated. I'd argue that most of entertainment: from television to movies to books is in a huge rut. Partly because I think we've run out of original ideas in general. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. After all, MAB has proven that a show rooted in history and "baggage" can still be fresh and riveting. So unless future technology can make an actor pop off my tv screen like a Jetsons gadget, I don't see how some new lineup will be any more creative or innovative than the old.

GL may be profitable, but by how MUCH?!

Considering how much more overhead the other soaps have (more vets, more BTS talent, higher production costs in general) and considering how close even they are to GL, I'd argue that GL is probably more profitable than the other shows are.

I dunno. Maybe the fact that I'm trying to defend the show, when several months ago, I WANTED this show to be put out of its misery, says something.

Edited April 1, 200916 yr by Dan

Considering that GH and AMC supposedly can't even stay in budget, if this is about profit, then they shouldn't even be on the air now. Yet the press and many in the industry still continue to peddle GH as a jewel in the crown.

I agree GL will probably be replaced with syndicated programming, and then time may be freed up to try to help Price is Right. Then if this is a success, the message will be, "Hey, we're better off cutting the soaps out," and we can say goodbye to a few more of them, or most of them, even sooner. That would be some type of amusingly dark coda, if this great wakeup call to daytime (canceling GL) soon turns into a wakeup call to the networks to get rid of most of their soaps.

Edited April 1, 200916 yr by CarlD2

I agree GL will probably be replaced with syndicated programming, and then time may be freed up to try to help Price is Right. Then if this is a success, the message will be, "Hey, we're better off cutting the soaps out," and we can say goodbye to a few more of them, or most of them, even sooner. That would be some type of amusingly dark coda, if this great wakeup call to daytime (canceling GL) soon turns into a wakeup call to the networks to get rid of most of their soaps.

I think regardless or not if GL goes first, soaps will be extinct soon enough. I think all soaps, not just GL, are living on borrowed time.

I think one could make a good argument that soaps have "looked like [!@#$%^&*]" for the great majority of their lifespans. Hell, GL was on the air when the only "production value" was a person's imagination. And through the early tv years when the soaps were shot in poorly designed and sparsely decorated sets that periodically fell during production. But the stories were so good that viewers never minded the production. Admittedly, storytelling is a big problem with GL even now, but as others have said, there HAS been marked improvement. There's plenty of areas that MUST improve in order for the show to be even close to as good as it was, but it should be given the chance. After all, I think most of us are talking only another year. I think that's enough to see if the show can improve. After all, I think we can all agree that longterm improvement is the only way a show can save itself.

But how can this show be trusted? We've seen it time and time again, how things will make marked improvement only for TIIC to screw this show over again. How many times will the budget be slashed and the cast be forced to embarrass themselves for an easy paycheck? What happens if CBS renews the show AGAIN at a lower licensing fee? More big namkes fired? Will Grant Aleksander become Peapack's answer to Thaao Penglis? Will GL turn itself into an audio show with pictures of the actors? Again, will they do every show from that field they're so fond of in the rain, sleet, and snow all in the same episode? Will they be able to afford their production office space? Or will they do all their work from home to save on production costs?(I know that read like the intro to Soap, but whatever...)

I completely agree! I've seen some of the posts in this and the other thread about the future and I have to say: bullshit! We say that daytime needs to be overhauled and renovated. I'd argue that most of entertainment: from television to movies to books is in a huge rut. Partly because I think we've run out of original ideas in general. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. After all, MAB has proven that a show rooted in history and "baggage" can still be fresh and riveting. So unless future technology can make an actor pop off my tv screen like a Jetsons gadget, I don't see how some new lineup will be any more creative or innovative than the old.

No one is saying the new lineup(sans GL) would be innovative. No one is saying that at all. Certainly a talkshow wouldn't be the most creative or innovative thing ever. But alas, so typical of the nuGL fanbase to put words into people's mouths!

Anyway, Barbara Bloom has to do something to preserve what's left of the CBS Daytime Lineup. No one is saying that daytime doesn't need a renaissance or creative overhaul. But certainly(as I believe marceline mentioned in another thread weeks ago), embracing mediocrity isn't going to help daytime die a death with dignity.

I dunno. Maybe the fact that I'm trying to defend the show, when several months ago, I WANTED this show to be put out of its misery, says something.

No one blames you for being nostalgic, Dan. I mean, it must be refreshing to see your show finally "back on track." However, there's something to be said about "letting go" when you've exhausted all efforts.

I think syndicated programming will likely take GL's slot with affiliates should GL ever get canceled...

Possibly. But Bloom needs pet projects to keep her job. It's well known that Y&R, B&B, and (to a certain degree, because of FREEmantle Media's control over it) PRICE are all self governing bodies who have "respectful" relationships with the network. If GL gets canceled, that leaves ATWT, which is likely to be canceled right after it. If both of the PGP shows are canned without replacements, then they really don't need her position at CBS. They just need someone in charge of FCC Content and Censorship, which they have at each coast anyway.

Bloom would be an idiot to axe GL without a replacement, whether it be another soap, talk show, or game show. She needs properties on her lineup to keep her job. That's why I take stock in the TVWeek Article that claims she's looking for a cheaper replacement.

No one is saying the new lineup(sans GL) would be innovative. No one is saying that at all. Certainly a talkshow wouldn't be the most creative or innovative thing ever. But alas, so typical of the nuGL fanbase to put words into people's mouths!

Sorry if I gave that hint that I was putting words into people's mouths, but I actually meant it on a larger scale, not just moaning that everyone is "picking on" little ol' GL, lol. I was thinking about everyone's posts from the future thread about how soaps in general should be allowed to die so that something fresh and innovative can take its place, which is easier said than done, I think, in a business that makes its money on sequels and remakes and series of all kinds.

Of course, after posting that, I thought that by the time soaps have all died, network television in general would be close to death as well. On one hand, I like this democratization of television. I like that I can watch what I want when I want to watch it. It just doesn't seem to be as sustainable financially as something more objective like a network's lineup. After all, democracy is hardly the most organized form of government possible. Who knows what the future holds of course.

But how can this show be trusted? We've seen it time and time again, how things will make marked improvement only for TIIC to screw this show over again. How many times will the budget be slashed and the cast be forced to embarrass themselves for an easy paycheck? What happens if CBS renews the show AGAIN at a lower licensing fee? More big namkes fired? Will Grant Aleksander become Peapack's answer to Thaao Penglis? Will GL turn itself into an audio show with pictures of the actors? Again, will they do every show from that field they're so fond of in the rain, sleet, and snow all in the same episode? Will they be able to afford their production office space? Or will they do all their work from home to save on production costs?(I know that read like the intro to Soap, but whatever...)

Some of the news in the not-too-distant future do have me a little bit hopeful. But I do understand the risks. Personally, I think I just want one more year. Give the show a chance to keep the improvement going and if it can't muster up than pull the plug September 2010.

No one blames you for being nostalgic, Dan. I mean, it must be refreshing to see your show finally "back on track." However, there's something to be said about "letting go" when you've exhausted all efforts.

It's funny to read that because I've said it myself to a number of GL fans on this very board over the years. But I think I'm starting to understand why it really puts fans on the defensive. It's kind of like a sibling that's disconnected from the family coming back when a parent is on their deathbed and telling you that you need to let go. Sure that sibling is thinking more about logic and the probable chance of recovery, but they don't have the immediate emotional connection than you do. So instead of logic, you are simply holding on to hope and to hear them saying you need to let go, particularly when they have been gone for years is frustrating and infuriating.

Of course, that sibling also doesn't realize how much easier said than done "letting go" can be...

Some of the news in the not-too-distant future do have me a little bit hopeful. But I do understand the risks. Personally, I think I just want one more year. Give the show a chance to keep the improvement going and if it can't muster up than pull the plug September 2010.

I think the issue, on CBS's part here, would be that GL has been given "one more year" for the few years and P&G's misjudgements have seen the show go through some truly horrible times, trying to emulate other series instead of providing the community/character driven drama that made GL a success in the first place. Now it's just getting back to where it needed to be years ago, so it's understandable that they might want to cut the chord.

Still, I think that if it was renewed when it was in far worse shape (with a far higher budget), then they should give it a chance to see if this creative upswing can continue. My one gripe with GL right now is the opening, it's horrid. When your only issue with a series is those 30 seconds, you know it cant be that bad.

Sorry if I gave that hint that I was putting words into people's mouths, but I actually meant it on a larger scale, not just moaning that everyone is "picking on" little ol' GL, lol. I was thinking about everyone's posts from the future thread about how soaps in general should be allowed to die so that something fresh and innovative can take its place, which is easier said than done, I think, in a business that makes its money on sequels and remakes and series of all kinds.

Of course, after posting that, I thought that by the time soaps have all died, network television in general would be close to death as well. On one hand, I like this democratization of television. I like that I can watch what I want when I want to watch it. It just doesn't seem to be as sustainable financially as something more objective like a network's lineup. After all, democracy is hardly the most organized form of government possible. Who knows what the future holds of course.

So, I agree with much of what you have written here.

Here is how I see it going. The "2010s" are going to be the decade during which not only daytime-soaps-on-US-networks are no longer economically viable, but possibly the decade in which broadcast networks are not viable.

So, all our "guiding lights" will blink out, one after another, in domino. Brad Bell's SOD interview points out that some might last longer than I think (I think they'll all be dead by 2016)...but the basic premise that soaps will go -- for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons -- seems pretty inarguable.

Now the day will come when your "democratic" on-demand universe will be properly monitized. Indeed, I would argue this can't happen UNTIL we get rid of "free" TV. (Why pay for something you can get without payment).

At that point, when the conditions are right, new serials will begin to seed and grow. But, as I have written before, they will NOT again be "daytime", they will NOT necessarily by 5-days a week, and they will NOT last 70 years. They will, at best, capture small cable-like audience shares. Never again will these behemoth soaps capture big numbers. That's true for the whole TV landscape.

That is why shows, from the oldest (GL) to the youngest (B& need to be studied as the artifacts they are...products of a different era. We should enjoy them while they are creatively and financially viable, but we should also gird ourselves -- for 100% of the shows -- for the unavoidable day, coming fairly soon, when the financials just won't work out anymore.

Well... the problem is this. You cannot get rid of free TV, PERIOD. For one, the FCC won't allow it... and secondly, free TV is the basis on which the emergency broadcast system is laid upon. Public safety is much more important than anything else. I don't think soaps will be gone by 2016, I think they will dwindle to 2 or 3. Now, part of my problem is that local network affiliates are LOADED with cable company advertizements, trying to fool people and scare them that the digital transition means they HAVE to get cable service. These local affiliates are cutting their own throats, enabling MORE people to tune into cable channels and tune OUT the big 3. In this crappy economy, pushing the consumer to go back to getting their television Over the air, would mean more veiwers for the big 3. But since alot of the big 3 own cable channels as well.... there are only so many pieces in that pie, and they've made things so each network only gets a bite, instead of a whole piece.

Edited April 1, 200916 yr by alphanguy74