But when you have people behind the scenes who secretly and openly believe daytime is dead, why would that inspire anyone to do a good story?

If Y&R and B&B really want to stay in business, the people behind the scenes have got to lose this defeatist attitude. If they don't care, why the hell should we?

They should get people like Gloria Monty, I mean people who are alive, but people who just go "what the hell" and make strong changes, positive changes, on a show because they know it will be canceled if big changes aren't made.

A lot of the people running soaps today just don't care. They are collecting their paychecks and at times they seem to have outright hatred towards soaps and the soap format. This seems especially prevalent at CBS.

They should get people like Gloria Monty, I mean people who are alive, but people who just go "what the hell" and make strong changes, positive changes, on a show because they know it will be canceled if big changes aren't made.

A lot of the people running soaps today just don't care. They are collecting their paychecks and at times they seem to have outright hatred towards soaps and the soap format. This seems especially prevalent at CBS.

Wendy Riche, Linda Gottlieb too.

They should get people like Gloria Monty, I mean people who are alive, but people who just go "what the hell" and make strong changes, positive changes, on a show because they know it will be canceled if big changes aren't made.

A lot of the people running soaps today just don't care. They are collecting their paychecks and at times they seem to have outright hatred towards soaps and the soap format. This seems especially prevalent at CBS.

Yup!!

And you know someone from ABC...cough...AMC will hire Goutman as a director for pathetic AMC. AMC is on its last legs..along with OLTL.....

Yup!!

And you know someone from ABC...cough...AMC will hire Goutman as a director for pathetic AMC. AMC is on its last legs..along with OLTL.....

Why would anyone do that? Especially if he doesn't move to L.A.

And besides, who would get him an "IN" there? Pretty much everyone who worked over him when he was a director is no longer there. And Julie wouldn't hire him. She has a hardon for all things Port Charles.

I don't see how the era of VCRs and basic cable is any way comparable to what's available today. Ease of access is vastly different for one. Of course more entertainment avenues are not the only reasons that viewership plummeted, but it's not something that can be easily dismissed either. There is a reason why both primetime and daytime are struggling to catch up. No one can tell me that there isn't a little correlation between technological progress and soap's fast falling ratings. Ratings have been steadily falling since the '90s regardless of quality. Has the ratings pecking order EVER corresponded with quality OR has Y&R and B&B really been the best soaps on daytime for almost 10 years straight? My point is TV ratings and quality do not always go hand in hand any more than box office and oscar-worthy films do. I'm not saying DVDs and the internet killed soaps. It just sped the decline. Although terrible writing played a large part.

**********

Tell that to the viewers of incredible primetime shows that were cancelled during their prime. Or tell it to viewers of great shows that can't seem to find a large audience no matter how hard they try. Maybe tell it to the soap viewers who are utterly stupefied when an improving show only shows a slight improvement in the ratings. OR heaven forbid a decline! A show like GH could have a miraculous turnaround as far as quality goes but does anyone actually believe it will see 3.0s again? 2.5s maybe? Not a chance. Bottom line is a lot of these shows used up all the goodwill that was shown to them and its too late to turn the tide. They all fell together and in order to have a chance they'll have to rise together. DAYS has been a recent success but it'll only go so far before it hits a ratings wall that no other soap besides Y&R can jump. No soap is breaking too far from the pack no matter how good a year they have.

And more choices do in fact matter if there are more entertainment options for the casual or disappointed viewer. If a soap doesn't entertain, viewers are even LESS likely now than ever before to hang in there and give the soap a chance of winning them over.

THIS x10000.

The increase of options/decrease of at-home audience and decrease of quality go hand in hand:

The increase of options and decrease of at-home audiences accounts for the loss of casual/non-committed viewers.

The decrease in quality/ignorance of viewers accounts for the loss of more long-term/dedicated viewers.

It just makes no sense to me to say that a casual/sometimes/"*cough cough* I'm sick so I'm not going to work today" viewer would stop watching a soap because the stories are different and the characters are acting out of character. These people are casual viewers for a reason. They'll say "Oh, wow, AMC is a little nutty," but that'll be while they're on their way to an NCIS repeat or something, which they're going to be watching regardless of whether or not AMC is good. AMC could be written by 5-star writers with amazing storylines, brilliant characterization, and the finest production values in the entire world, but if a casual viewer who isn't actively seeking out a show to watch everyday at noon has the choice between: A, a show that they only know a little about and would have to watch more than one episode to fully understand the plots of, and B, a show that will have an almost guaranteed beginning-to-end self-contained plot within one 60-minute episode, what do you think they're going to pick?

I mean, in order to turn many casual viewers into regular viewers, and by regular, that's as in people who actually count in the ratings (daytime viewers), for a lot of viewers, you're going to have to find a way to get them fired. Find a way to get the younger viewers out of school. THEN, you have to show them that soaps are still worthwhile, BUT you have to either do it BIG all the time in order to keep those viewers or you have to count on them sticking with it even if the episode they've decided to watch is full of character banter and "Let's sit down and talk about it" scenes. It just won't happen. Not anymore. I wish I could believe that simply writing soaps the way they were written 15, 25, 35 years ago (with modernization) would magically make people want to watch these shows again, everyday, at home, in front of the TV, everyday, but I just don't. I can't.

And let's not even get into the soap stigma. Even when soaps were at the top of their game, they were still ridiculed, made fun of, and looked down upon by every other area of entertainment. I read an article that came out a day before Ryan's Hope premiered in 1975, and it was basically "We don't need another one of these things clogging up our airwaves." And this is at a time when you had Agnes writing AMC, Harding L. writing AW, Gordon Russell at OLTL, Soderberg/Sommer at ATWT, etc. There are people who do not watch soaps, do not plan to watch soaps, and will never watch soaps, ever.

And for the love of God, the Wikipedia vultures are already circling the ATWT wiki page, inserting their little "-2010"'s every-freakin-where. I thought that site was supposed to reflect the PRESENT, not the FUTURE. They did that [!@#$%^&*] with GL. "ATWT aired its last episode on September 17, 2010." Because we are totally in late 2010 already.

I think you're majorly downplaying that quote. I have always and will always read that quote as a reply to people complaining about how bad the stories are on the show. And if I am not mistaken, that was what the SOD reporter was asking about. The overall quality of the show. I don't think there was anything meant about appeasing to specific fanbases.

What I was trying to get across was: what constitutes "listening" to your viewers encompasses more than reading fan mail, or reading the summary of what fan mail came in that week/month/year. A basic rule of drama is not "give them what they SAY they want when they want it and how they want it"...but give them a reason to keep coming back. Goutman saying "I don't read fan mail" (or whatever the specific quote was) isn't the same as saying "I write what I like, and [!@#$%^&*] anyone else's opinion."

What he said got interpreted as arrogance, when I think it was more about him remaining unbiased in terms of serving the bigger picture of needing 50 weeks of shows a year. Did he stick with bad stories and unpopular pairings too long? Sure---but even Doug Marland did, and he was arguably the most "in touch" with his fans.

THIS x10000.

The increase of options/decrease of at-home audience and decrease of quality go hand in hand:

The increase of options and decrease of at-home audiences accounts for the loss of casual/non-committed viewers.

The decrease in quality/ignorance of viewers accounts for the loss of more long-term/dedicated viewers.

It just makes no sense to me to say that a casual/sometimes/"*cough cough* I'm sick so I'm not going to work today" viewer would stop watching a soap because the stories are different and the characters are acting out of character. These people are casual viewers for a reason. They'll say "Oh, wow, AMC is a little nutty," but that'll be while they're on their way to an NCIS repeat or something, which they're going to be watching regardless of whether or not AMC is good. AMC could be written by 5-star writers with amazing storylines, brilliant characterization, and the finest production values in the entire world, but if a casual viewer who isn't actively seeking out a show to watch everyday at noon has the choice between: A, a show that they only know a little about and would have to watch more than one episode to fully understand the plots of, and B, a show that will have an almost guaranteed beginning-to-end self-contained plot within one 60-minute episode, what do you think they're going to pick?

I mean, in order to turn many casual viewers into regular viewers, and by regular, that's as in people who actually count in the ratings (daytime viewers), for a lot of viewers, you're going to have to find a way to get them fired. Find a way to get the younger viewers out of school. THEN, you have to show them that soaps are still worthwhile, BUT you have to either do it BIG all the time in order to keep those viewers or you have to count on them sticking with it even if the episode they've decided to watch is full of character banter and "Let's sit down and talk about it" scenes. It just won't happen. Not anymore. I wish I could believe that simply writing soaps the way they were written 15, 25, 35 years ago (with modernization) would magically make people want to watch these shows again, everyday, at home, in front of the TV, everyday, but I just don't. I can't.

And let's not even get into the soap stigma. Even when soaps were at the top of their game, they were still ridiculed, made fun of, and looked down upon by every other area of entertainment. I read an article that came out a day before Ryan's Hope premiered in 1975, and it was basically "We don't need another one of these things clogging up our airwaves." And this is at a time when you had Agnes writing AMC, Harding L. writing AW, Gordon Russell at OLTL, Soderberg/Sommer at ATWT, etc. There are people who do not watch soaps, do not plan to watch soaps, and will never watch soaps, ever.

And for the love of God, the Wikipedia vultures are already circling the ATWT wiki page, inserting their little "-2010"'s every-freakin-where. I thought that site was supposed to reflect the PRESENT, not the FUTURE. They did that [!@#$%^&*] with GL. "ATWT aired its last episode on September 17, 2010." Because we are totally in late 2010 already.

People will watch good stories.

The rise in technology is an issue but the reality is viewers still want good stories.

THAT'S the reason Daytime is dying.

What I was trying to get across was: what constitutes "listening" to your viewers encompasses more than reading fan mail, or reading the summary of what fan mail came in that week/month/year. A basic rule of drama is not "give them what they SAY they want when they want it and how they want it"...but give them a reason to keep coming back. Goutman saying "I don't read fan mail" (or whatever the specific quote was) isn't the same as saying "I write what I like, and [!@#$%^&*] anyone else's opinion."

I guess it's a matter of perception.

Digest: What effect does a fan campaign or letters have on how you tell a story?

Goutman: I think the number of fans who write letters and who are online are a very, very, very, very---may I repeat, very---small percentage of the actual fan base. What I go on more than anything else is instinct and what I see on the air. I would hope that my instincts match our constituency. And I think, by and large, it has.

Digest: Do you ever look at message boards?

Goutman: I never go online.

Digest: Do you get a mail report about what people are saying?

Goutman: Vaguely, but I really don't look at it.

Digest: So would you recommend that people not bother sending things?

Goutman: Yes, I do.

Digest: It's not going to make a difference?

Goutman: Not to me.

Edited December 10, 200916 yr by bellcurve

Wendy Riche, Linda Gottlieb too.

I would love to see those two return to daytime, but I don't think that will ever happen. At this point, and after their experiences with ABC, I don't think either of those two have any desire to fight with the networks anymore. They were the last of the great daytime EP's.

It just makes no sense to me to say that a casual/sometimes/"*cough cough* I'm sick so I'm not going to work today" viewer would stop watching a soap because the stories are different and the characters are acting out of character. These people are casual viewers for a reason. They'll say "Oh, wow, AMC is a little nutty," but that'll be while they're on their way to an NCIS repeat or something, which they're going to be watching regardless of whether or not AMC is good. AMC could be written by 5-star writers with amazing storylines, brilliant characterization, and the finest production values in the entire world, but if a casual viewer who isn't actively seeking out a show to watch everyday at noon has the choice between: A, a show that they only know a little about and would have to watch more than one episode to fully understand the plots of, and B, a show that will have an almost guaranteed beginning-to-end self-contained plot within one 60-minute episode, what do you think they're going to pick?

I think there's a good chance they would pick A, if the episode was good enough. They can see an NCIS repeat anytime, anywhere. Casual viewers BECOME loyal viewers if they have a reason, if the show gives them a reason.

The soaps of today are not just a betrayal of longtime viewers, they are also generally boring or unwatchable to a casual viewer. They're made up as they go along and they are often targeted at a demographic which hates women, doesn't like minorities or wants to pretend minorities don't exist, and wants to see nasty, unpleasant "heroes" who go around shooting and punching all day.

There have always been other options for people staying at home. People weren't suddenly thrown into a landscape where they had all these choices.

What you need to do is give people interesting characters and compelling moments, yet things that also make sense to them, that they can relate to. Hook them, and then pull them in. All it takes is a glance. That's it. Who is that woman? Why is she so upset? Will she be happy?

Hell, NCIS is a better written soap than most of what we have on the air now. The "Tiva" fans, or whatever they are called, are right out of daytime.

There are people who do not watch soaps, do not plan to watch soaps, and will never watch soaps, ever.

And THESE are the people that soaps now write for. That's why the soaps are going out of business.

There are many, many people who would watch a soap, whether it was seen as cool or not, if the soap made the effort. Just as there were many, many people who watched the Hooterville shows even as the press regularly derided them. Just as there are now many people who continue to watch procedural dramas even as the media lectures them and tells them the only acceptable fare is Lost, Sopranos, and so on.

The reason they have stopped watching is because the people in charge of daytime are ashamed of them, are ashamed of the soap format, and would rather fade away to nothing than go back to what they deem as uncool or outdated.

Edited December 10, 200916 yr by CarlD2

Before I share the link I'm going to, I just want to say: Goutman is not a very wise person, or producer, if he truly believes what he said. Most of the stories written by Irna Phillips were dictated by fan reaction. You have to cater to the fans first and foremost. Not the advertisers. The fans are the ones watching, and if they like something, they're going to tune in for as long as it's on. If they don't like something, they're either going to gripe about it and turn off the TV or send TPTB their thoughts, whether it be snail mail (which is the way most early soaps differentiated between good stories and bad stories) or e-mail or posting on message boards. I think in order for a show to succeed, they have to stay in touch with the fans' needs and likes. The sponsors provide the money; they don't watch the show. A while back, there was talk about sponsors pulling out because of Nuke. If they don't like it, then they can either fulfill the terms of their contract and begrudgingly keep paying...or they can back out. And if they threaten to back out, I don't think the network should tweak story to keep them. No; let them go and find someone else. (I'm sure that, for every business that doesn't like something, there's another that either does....or they just don't care.) Advertising is one of the biggest markets in the world right now. It might not be the most financially rewarding, but businesses want to get the word out. They want people to buy their product. In tough economic times like these, they rely on advertising to draw consumers in, buy their product, and give them money. If sponsors want to pull out because of a Nuke kiss, don't let them decide whether or not Noah and Luke will ever lock lips again. Instead, I think they should let them go if they want to.....and then find another sponsor. Advertisers/sponsors should have no say in story. I think most networks today are guilty of bending story to accomodate better business.

And as far as Goutman and Passanante, they should have been fired long ago. There have been fans unhappy with them since weeks after they took over. And again, instead of listening to the fans, they kept them around. For what reason, I'm not sure. I don't know any backstage juice. But it was a bad choice IMO. Because of their long stay and the CBS Daytime execs' nonchalant dismissal of fans' feedback, we lost longtime viewers that could have potentially been the deciding factor in ATWT's renewal.

Now: to the link! AOL Online did a fantastic piece on ATWT (and the fate of the daytime genre) that I wanted to share:

http://insidetv.aol.com/2009/12/09/is-there-still-a-future-for-soap-operas/

*Sigh* What great news....

Seriously, CBS couldn't wait another year after cancelling GL to do the same to ATWT???

A few years ago, I could have care less about ATWT being taken off air, and even thought the show is far from perfect, I'm enjoying it a lot more now than I did then.

CBS is way over their heads if they think another talk/game show will reel in viewers.

I sort of feel like B&B outlived its use about five or ten years ago. I know people say that about various soaps but with B&B I did feel something in that show die around the time they decided to just give up on anything original and bring Taylor back from the dead yet again.

Y&R, no one at that show seems to care a bit about the future, or even the present. It's all recycle and weird mental issues.

I actually don't think so. I think re-shaped into a chamber trashy show on some cable... It could go on for quite some time. But it won't.

I don't see how the era of VCRs and basic cable is any way comparable to what's available today. Ease of access is vastly different for one. Of course more entertainment avenues are not the only reasons that viewership plummeted, but it's not something that can be easily dismissed either. There is a reason why both primetime and daytime are struggling to catch up. No one can tell me that there isn't a little correlation between technological progress and soap's fast falling ratings. Ratings have been steadily falling since the '90s regardless of quality. Has the ratings pecking order EVER corresponded with quality OR has Y&R and B&B really been the best soaps on daytime for almost 10 years straight? My point is TV ratings and quality do not always go hand in hand any more than box office and oscar-worthy films do. I'm not saying DVDs and the internet killed soaps. It just sped the decline. Although terrible writing played a large part.

Tell that to the viewers of incredible primetime shows that were cancelled during their prime. Or tell it to viewers of great shows that can't seem to find a large audience no matter how hard they try. Maybe tell it to the soap viewers who are utterly stupefied when an improving show only shows a slight improvement in the ratings. OR heaven forbid a decline! A show like GH could have a miraculous turnaround as far as quality goes but does anyone actually believe it will see 3.0s again? 2.5s maybe? Not a chance. Bottom line is a lot of these shows used up all the goodwill that was shown to them and its too late to turn the tide. They all fell together and in order to have a chance they'll have to rise together. DAYS has been a recent success but it'll only go so far before it hits a ratings wall that no other soap besides Y&R can jump. No soap is breaking too far from the pack no matter how good a year they have.

And more choices do in fact matter if there are more entertainment options for the casual or disappointed viewer. If a soap doesn't entertain, viewers are even LESS likely now than ever before to hang in there and give the soap a chance of winning them over.

Yeah. What CarlD is saying about them being good and better promoted wouldn't really matter all that much. Not now and probably not yesterday or ten years ago. Promotion of a stale format and same old endless cr*ppy stories wouldn't bring in new people.

And as far as Goutman and Passanante, they should have been fired long ago. There have been fans unhappy with them since weeks after they took over. And again, instead of listening to the fans, they kept them around. For what reason, I'm not sure. I don't know any backstage juice. But it was a bad choice IMO. Because of their long stay and the CBS Daytime execs' nonchalant dismissal of fans' feedback, we lost longtime viewers that could have potentially been the deciding factor in ATWT's renewal.

This is what pisses me off the most. These two were allowed to stick around and make the show unrecognizable to the fans. There was absolutely NO excuse for this, unless this is what CBS was striving for, ATWT to be cancelled