Jump to content

Tears in soap city starting to look real


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

People will never be too busy to be entertained.

If you have little and grown boys playing World of Warcraft 365 days of the year like their lives depended on it, you can have little and grown girls watching soap operas. Especially now when everyone wants to escape from their struggles because of the recession.

People don't watch anymore because the stories suck. It angers me that TPTB continue to point all the blame on everyone else but themselves.

Go back to the [!@#$%^&*] drawing board and you'll find your viewers again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, I don't think the PP I've seen so far on soaps have been all that natural. However, I think soaps do need to take advantage of product placement. Coke signs and paper cups at Kelly's (GH) or have one of the characters ask another out on a date to see (insert date movie title) type stuff. I really believe it needs to happen for soaps to survive , but they need to learn how to make it more seamless than it has been in the past. I'm sure that's hard though because of pressure from the advertisers involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They're counting them...at least on the legal streams and soapnet...but they haven't fully figured out how to monetize them.

I think I see where it is headed.

Yesterday, Roger Newcomb had a link to the latest bit about cable companies METERING internet usage. So, my monthly cable bill will be related to how much uploading and downloading I do.

Once we meter downloads, we're counting consumption.

Then, like they do with VHS blank tape sales, and so forth, a PORTION of that revenue can go back to the studios in whatever way they do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I saw that bandwidth article.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/2...g_Is_Coming.php

Time Warner did try to explain that, but most people don't buy it, because they haven't said anything beyond, "The Internet is going to run out because of greedy people, so pay us money." It was a member of Congress who stopped Time Warner's plans, for now. If Time Warner can't even explain to him, then apparently the plan has some big flaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Monetize WHAT dude?! They already have figured out how to make money from legal streams and SOAPnet. If these shows weren't making money online, the networks wouldn't put them on different platforms and pimp them the way they do, especially Y&R which is pretty much on every flash site but xTube.

The WGA and other unions ended up getting their arm Ike Turner twisted into settling for this crappy 14-day free promotion crap. The networks and studios are making money from this. And they are making money in a way where they could decide how many views a show is getting and divide that amongst everyone. They just want a head start in screwing the talent over, the exact same way talent got screwed during the home movie market boom(which caused the six month 1988 strike).

After all, there are ads there every time we watch legal streaming content. So networks are "monetizing." They are just saying that to save face and to make the general public and union members with a sense of naivete believe that it's still "a new technology that we're not making money from"

And I am SURE they know how many people are watching their shows online. YouTube even has viewcounts at the bottom of their page. The networks are making money, even if it is a small amount.

And you will still have internet/tech geeks who will want to play WOW and other games at a certain speed without being charged over $1000 a month for it. The free market reigns. There's no way an internet company will stay in business if they charge by the amount of uploading and downloading someone does, like an electric bill or water bill. That's like charging someone for the amount of cable TV they watch.

But, per usual, I've digressed.

Well, let's talk about something, anything but the DAMN swine flu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I've seen so many posters over the years who are bright, creative, well-versed in soap history, and who care deeply about the integrity of the genre. I'd put the shows' chances in their hands a lot faster than I would allow any of the "usual suspects" to take control of the dramas they've already helped decimate. When I returned to university in the 1980s, I created a bible for a new soap and presented it in my screenwriting class. It was in reaction to how badly I saw the network shows being butchered at the time. The creative process was thrilling; a total joy, and I still smile when I remember the positive feedback I received from the professor and my fellow students. I was used to seeing written commentary from professors on my work. This one wrote me a long, complimentary note on the final page of the bible, but also graded it 97%, A+. I was beaming ear to ear for days!

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Thanks. I do wonder if Rose was meant to be more given the caliber of actress they hired. I remembered Sara and Peggy staying longer as they were still on when Soapnet started their repeats. I wonder if that was part of the reason they brought Jake's brother in. 
    • Speculation about Missy Reeves' potential evolution on basic civil rights doesn’t change my opinion of her. My view is shaped entirely by her public social media presence—which I find unpalatable—and I have no interest in learning more beyond that. I simply liked Jennifer’s hair and dress. That’s as far as my admiration goes.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Cheryl was gone before Lemay came back but I agree with your thinking that he would rather a character from a family he introduced to the show than a family he did not originate.  I remember reading somewhere in the early 90's probably after DS left as writer, their was an either a writer or a producer who made a comment that their intent was bring the McKinnon family back to AW.  Would have made sense for the newer viewers from the 80's.  Much like Lemay's attempt to bring the Frames back from his writing in the 70's in his 1988 return
    • DePriest left in January 1988. According to the AWHP, Rose last appeared nearly a year before in February 1987 while both Sara and Peggy appeared as late as October 1987.
    • Annie was not brought in as an antagonist for Reva. Reva wasn’t even on the canvas when Annie first appeared in late 1994. 
    • The speculation……….very entertaining. 
    • I had forgotten that several Days stars came out strong against Melissa. Good for them!
    • That would have made sense. Did all these characters get dropped when DePriest left or had they already been dropped?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy