AMC: Welcome Home Promo

[Vee]

marceline, you remain the same tiresome, thin-skinned crank afraid of the sunlight that you've always been. If you want to take a shot at me, just do it, I don't have all night to watch you dance around making a point that might offend anyone left on the board who still doesn't know how you operate. My opinions about AMC vs. OLTL haven't a thing to do with Nelson Branco, despite your repeated attempts to link me to that lunatic just because we're unfortunate enough to share the same sexual orientation. And you apparently know nothing about the concept of the lead-in. Now, using your logic for a moment, I didn't hear you touting OLTL's supposed merits when it was beating AMC last year. But we both know you wouldn't be caught dead complimenting OLTL since spring 2007. There is literally nothing that show could do to make you watch, then, or in 2008, or in 2009, or now.

Unlike you, though, I'm not willing to twist myself into a pretzel to make excuses for bad storytelling based on the love of two or three characters. I'll readily admit that OLTL is a mess these days, and have done so repeatedly in the last few months. But even if OLTL's overall storytelling was at the level it was two years ago, the point of my posts in the thread, before you derailed it, was that ABC Daytime has never and would never give OLTL the same kind of promotional push it has given AMC with this move to California. Here is a show (AMC) that was forced to vacate the premises because its options were either leave New York for cheaper digs, or be cancelled because of internal production mismanagement. If OLTL had been in the same financial straits as AMC last year, it would've been cancelled - no move - bottom line. AMC had to move because it couldn't function in its current operational environment anymore, and ABC moved it to LA to save it because it valued it despite these huge failures behind the scenes, where even when it was beating OLTL by a few points, it reportedly couldn't (and can't) make the money back to turn a profit because of its budget issues.

AMC also had a horrible year creatively, worse even than OLTL's which was no bed of roses but had some bright spots. So I understand trying to promote AMC, reinvigorate it, promise people the moon, and so on, even if I seriously doubt they will deliver. But what about the show that actually had some good stories in the last two or three years and hasn't almost been cancelled twice in the last three years? OLTL stayed on its budget, or under it, and was not the soap that spurred last year's big move. So where, pray tell, is the love for the perennial black sheep? Why can't OLTL get a fraction of the acknowledgment that AMC does, when OLTL performed according to spec and continues doing its job finance-wise? If the network really wants to pick up both these soaps, dust them off, and get people excited again, why is only one soap getting numerous promotions on The View? And why is it always the one soap that still can't stand on its own two feet behind the scenes? ABC doesn't want us to ask these questions; they just want people to ignore OLTL so they can trick you into thinking AMC is good again long enough to make a long-term case for saving it despite the fact that it still can't make it work. It's the same logic that keeps encouraging the ascendancy of Jay Leno - execs have a bias despite the hard numbers, so they hope the show that actually did its job will just go away.

These promos are increasingly shameless and pandering, but I wouldn't have as much of a problem with them if they a) gave OLTL a fraction of the same attention for what it accomplished where AMC couldn't, and weren't a cynical ploy to keep people watching until Kreizman got here to tank the show again.

[All My Shadows]

Oh my God. Just wow. I figure some things are just common damn sense by now.

AMC is a billion times easier to market than OLTL is. End of story. And for a billion reasons. In the 80s and 90s, AMC and GH were elevated above OLTL, and that's just the way it is. Sorry. Build a bridge. It's unfortunate, but it's true. AMC and GH -- even Gee f'n 8tch -- still have some sort of legacy to stand on. OLTL, much as I love it for it can be, has [!@#$%^&*] to stand on, and that's a pretty predictable result of years and years of the show going through identities like a high school whore goes through baby daddies. There's a reason why OLTL is down here and the other two are up here. OLTL has been having an identity crisis for more than half of its run now. That's why Agnes never has anything to say about it or do with it anymore. What could she? Almost *everything* she's contributed to the show is goooone and has been goooone for years.

What could they possibly put together for OLTL at this very moment that would have the same impact as the AMC promo? Mitch orchestrating some ridiculous Syfy GARBAGE? Rex and Stacy? Todd and Tea? Clint and Kim? To be frank, no one other than soap fans know who the [!@#$%^&*] they are nor do they care. I wouldn't waste an expensive promo on that either.

[dragonflies]

Given who is in charge :FRONS, I truly wonder if he even cares if history was spat on. I think they'll do or say anything to draw people back in.

I'm curious how long this will last. I can see LB honoring the show and character history, but I'm not so sure when it comes to DK(maybe DS)

[Vee]

You can market all three soaps equally. ABC simply chooses not to. That's their business, but it's been bad business.

Incidentally, Agnes appeared on OLTL during its anniversary in 2008.

[EricMontreal22]

You have some valid points Vee, and I agree ABC is not promoting OLTL as they should. But, but but...

AMC is getting better ratings and has for a few months now--it also was the program they decided to move (expensively it seems even if it saves money in the long run) to LA. Of course it's the one they're gonna promote. Blame ABC for that, yell at them, but OLTL's ratings don't seem to correspond to quality (neither do AMC's for that matter) and I think blaming the people who are at AMC for that is counterproductive. As was said, if anything AMC being a success will probably mean a longer life for OLTL.

(Didn't Agnes being on OLTL get a--TINY--bit of promo? I swear I remember an ad) I don't buy the feelign that agnes abandoned her show--throughout her time away there have been examples of her helping the show the best she could, and her being still involved with AMC the past decade hasn't really done much for the show anyway--and I know that's not what you're saying, but I do think it's a legit point that OLTL doesn't have anything right now they could promote the same way. They might have been able to with the return of Tina (I don't remember what the promos of that time were) but the show simply doesn't have a character I can think of who's been missing and was beloved like Brooke, whose return can be promoted the same way.

[Vee]

They certainly did promote the OLTL anniversary, but that was two years ago and a very rare event; also, it still didn't receive the kind of blitz this AMC thing is getting, where they go out of their way to pander to fans and do endless appearances on The View and other ABC shows, with these weird backstage confessional/story promos - it's just above and beyond what they do for anybody else. And why? Because AMC needs it. Okay, but they've never rewarded OLTL at any point. They could be promoting Gina Tognoni more, the way they've promoted Rebecca Budig, but instead she barely gets a blip. They could be promoting the return engagements of the Cramers the way they are touting Brooke's temporary return, but they don't. They gritted their teeth and only barely promoted the returns of Susan Haskell and Andrea Evans, the latter of whom the network clearly had no interest whatsoever in. But if Tina was on AMC and she'd come back in the last six months, I guarantee you she would have gotten the works complete with flashback promos and Cord on recurring status. She woulda gone Julia Barr.

I'm not blaming AMC for these promos; they don't make them, ABC's promotional department does. And the network makes the choices on what to promote and how much, and they choose AMC. But they're not choosing AMC because its ratings and numbers are very slightly higher than OLTL's. If this was the case, and this was the only factor involved in the decision-making process, OLTL could easily have gotten a similar PR push last year. AMC was chosen to push like this because it needs it that badly. It is losing money, it's been losing money for awhile; it needs a serious infusion of viewers and profit in order to justify keeping it on the air for much longer, even after the move to LA which was only temporary triage for a badly wounded show. AMC is getting this royal treatment because it's on life support, and ABC wants to save it while neglecting OLTL. And maybe OLTL is on life support too now, but the point is even when OLTL was beating AMC - and I believe it still both saves and makes more money than AMC - it never got a fraction of the same consideration, and that is because of a bias on the network level. If OLTL was in AMC's position this year, or last year, behind the scenes, money-wise, it would be gone by now. Instead, it's suffering a slow death of neglect, while AMC continues to just get the furniture rearranged in the most lavish and celebratory way possible. I'm not going to claim OLTL 2010 is some brilliant opus of late, but the contrast in treatment is clear to me, particularly when AMC is about to take on another bad headwriting team - it's a bait and switch.

[EricMontreal22]

I have no doubt OLTL is still doing better profits wise--AMC just moved--it'll take a good 6 months for the budget to settle down--I'd hope ABC realizes this--it's simple business sense. It's after that that the show better start doing better.

Vee, I guess I still don't really get who you're mad at. I honestly think promos SHOULD pander to fans (the show itself probably shouldn't--) ABC invested a lot in this move, they still have Susan Lucci on the show (so a talk show might think--well a lot of people know who Susan Lucci is so we'll get audience for havign her on--OLTL doesn't have a figure like that), so getting a slot on their own show The View, getting NYT to do a seminar, getting the Paley Center to do one (as they did two years back for OLTL) all that isn't remotely difficult to do, so why not? Should they have refused? It just seems silly to complain about pandering to fans, etc...

The gist I get from your post is confusing (and I honestly don't mean this as an attack at all--I respect your posts a lot)--ABC is pandering to their fans with these promos which is sorta a bad thing, but they're not doing the same for OLTL which is even worse, but they're doing all this cuz AMC is a huge monster sucking up money and is on life support a situation OLTL obviously isn't in, so that's a good thing, but they're doing this and neglecting OLTL so that's a bad thing... What am I missing...

[marceline]

This is where I think the "desperation" vibe that people are getting from the promo is coming from. They are totally desperate. ABC just made a huge investment in this show and the higher-ups are going to demand a return on that investment and by higher ups I mean the type of people who don't give a damn about anything but the bottom line. I think AMC has somebody keeping an eye on it - a second shooter if you will - and that's why we're getting less Fronsian stuff.

I'll admit that promo made me a little more hopeful than I have been.

[Vee]

It's one thing to pander to fans when you have an intent to follow through long-term; I don't believe ABC does. I believe they want to get AMC's numbers up as fast as possible to try and begin to turn a profit off the show again and get things moving in the trajectory they want for the two shows. If they really intended to make positive change, they would've kept someone like Broderick (or if she refused, someone equally qualified and familiar with the show) and not someone like Kreizman, and the returns of characters like Brooke and Dixie would not be short-term stunts. As it is, I seriously doubt we will not be in the same buyer's remorse position six months in with Kreizman that we swiftly were with Pratt.

As I said, I think it's a bait and switch. Flash a couple vets, put an old writer's name on the show for a month or two and hope for the best. But they'll make it the most elaborate bait and switch possible for a show that is underperforming monetarily, while they won't even spare a fraction of that time or energy for a show that continues to turn a profit.

There's a lot of diffused irritation to go around, but those are the bullet points. I'm sure I'll come up with something else that also sounds insane at 2 AM tomorrow.

[dragonflies]

Given that I remember reading that Frons was satisfied with Pratt's work, I agree completely with this. I don't think Frons ever had any intention of firing Pratt, but I think that came from higher up. I Think they want to get the numbers up any way they can so they can say "See we didn't waste money with this move"

They truly don't get that short-term stunts never work. I know Dixie fans aren't satisfied with returning for ONE WEEK. JB around for 3 months? It makes it hard to invest in these short-term stints

Well said!

[Vee]

I think Frons loved his buddy but had no choice but to let Pratt go due to the numbers and, I think most importantly, Pratt's allegedly large fee as both writer and producer. A fee AMC simply cannot afford, being wildly overbudget.

[Adam]

If you are referring to ratings, that whole argument at the time of Pratt's dismissal confused me. Pratt's run actually stabilized AMC's ratings and during most of his run AMC was one of the few soaps to be posting numbers ahead of where they were a year prior. I was really shocked to hear of Pratt's firing based on Frons' relationship with him and the fact that the show certainly wasn't bleeding viewers the way it was under McT for her last two years and certainly under B&E. My guess is this goes beyond Frons and comes from upstairs. The network is desperate, and I think its clear who they are desperate to save. I mean, Vee... I think you are right to a point that it is obvious the network is favouring AMC ahead of OLTL here. I mean they moved AMC to LA and promoted the hell out of it and also put it in HD. OLTL was to get HD, but that was deemed to expensive and they will look at it next year (which translates to never probably). Do we actually have CONCRETE proof though that AMC and GH are really performing drastically negatively in relation to OLTL as far as budgets are concerned. I don't think so. I mean I don't doubt that OLTL is probably the cheapest and therefore the easiest to turn a profit, I just think its being blown way out of proportion.

[EricMontreal22]

No, the budget chat is largely conjecture. Obviously JHC did do the stupid marathon as a cost saving measure, and I have ZERO doubt that OLTL is (or was) performing under budget, but I don't think there's as huge a difference (especially with AMC's salary drop and OLTL still having a huge cast) that fans harp on. But that could just be me.

Vee I agree that I have trouble fully trusting this promo. But again, you're complaining about the PROMO when this isn't the promo's fault A promo should pander to a fans, the promo is doing a great job. Shrug.