As The World Turns Discussion Thread

[DramatistDreamer]

 

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that that show will be on network television, certainly not during the daytime, that is.

[FrenchBug82]

Yeah American network executives have not believed in daytime soaps as a genre for twenty years.

I think their beliefs about why the genre has declined here are very offbase: in other countries like the UK or NZ or France (France didn't have ANY daytime soap fifteen years ago and now has four) soaps are doing very well and it is not like things like the Internet or attention span of viewers is different there from here.

The differences are in tones and in content (a lot more socially progressive in any of these shows) and what time of the day they air - all of them air in late afternoon, early evening over there.

But I think the contempt of Hollywood for soaps means it is unlikely they will take a chance at trying to revive the genre barring an executive who has a personal interest in it.

[DramatistDreamer]

 

I also believe that their reasons for why the genre lost rating share were off base.

They could have just gone on ahead and admitted that they didn't have the metrics available to evaluate just how many people were watching these shows overall, outside of live ratings. They blamed women for working outside the home without truly trying to figure out a way to measure how many were delayed viewing just like they fought for and found a way to measure DVR viewing, they should have done the same to agitate for the VCR. Industries can lobby and get changes within existing technology.

I remember when VCRs had the A/B switch, them suddenly, it was gone and companies no longer equipped their machines with this feature. That most likely had to be an industry-led change, as the switch was a great piece of technology and there was no reason to remove it.

 

[FrenchBug82]

I sometimes wonder if it is a case of them genuinely believing the metrics or them knowing the metrics are flawed but since the metrics are what advertising rates are based on, it doesn't matter to them.

They are probably aware that a LOT more people watch soaps - on various platforms - than what official ratings show but since the shows are only worth it for them if they get ad money from them, it is irrelevant to them.
And I get it; I mean it is a business and they need to get revenue.
But they are leaving SO much money on the table by taking the metrics at face value: CBS or PG could put all their years of archives online, the new shows as they air, special featurettes or extra online-only scenes, charge a reasonable Netflix-style fee for accesss to it all and I bet it would be a reasonable success.

[DramatistDreamer]

 

The soap industry has forever promoted the notion that only external forces have caused the decline of the genre. Every soap/daytime drama podcast that I have listened to in the last decade has railed on about working women and the O.J. Simpson trial as the causes, but almost none have discussed the poor executive and creative choices that have resulted in ratings deterioration.

[Forever8]

Yep!!! 

[DramatistDreamer]

 

P&G "wiped" many of their episodes before 1978-79, which, in an unsettling way would cut down the enormous volume of their archive, but even culling and digitizing those years would be a huge project that would take a lot of manpower. The digitization process get less expensive evey year but still, that would need teams of people, by teams, I mean, hundreds and could potentially take years. Honestly, I think P&G likely has the money but I see it as requiring a sizeable commitment and I sincerely doubt that P&G has any committment to such a project.

I do wish that P&G would allow a university or non-profit arts organization to come up with ways to restore their archive and make parts of it available.  Some Broadway shows and even estates of dance organizations and choreographers are doing this in conjunction with places like the New York Public Library at Lincoln Center. The late Trisha Brown, a choreographer has allowed her estate to archive all her practice, rehearsal footage, going back to the early 1960s to be digitized. It really is about committment, which P&G has none.

 

 

If someone could make this a project, worthy of serious study, i.e. "The History of Broadcast Television" or "Women As Pioneers In The Television Industry", maybe get famous alums behind it, like Julianne Moore, Bryan Cranston, Susan Lucci, Victoria Rowell, etc. perhaps the genre could collectively get some attention towards building something substantial.

Edited February 20, 2021 by DramatistDreamer

[DramatistDreamer]

 

I have learned from my experience working with theatre archives, including performances, the quickest way to get help establishing an archive is to connect it to a well supported organization that can open it up to students and professionals in the industry. In one of my previous jobs, I have helped theater PhD students, choreographers as well as visiting theater aficionados get access to various parts my former employer's archive which is housed at Lincoln Center. That archive has been in the process of digitization for the better part of a decade.

Edited February 19, 2021 by DramatistDreamer

[will81]

There is actually data that shows the number of women entering the workforce dipped slightly at certain points in the 90's and early 00's. Not drastically, but there was a decline at certan points. Many women chose to stay home, more likely because the US economy under Clinton was more stable. Cable tv subscriptions started dropping for a period after the OJ Simpson trial as well. In fact the 93/94 period when soaps had regained audience, cable tv subscriptions were peaking. Also many soaps (including DOOL) saw increases after the trial, though they didn't recapture all of their previous 1993/94 audience numbers, they should have been able to maintain what was left. Y&R managed to pull itself back up slightly in 95/96. Then from 1996 onwards almost nothing but sagging ratings for all soaps, and as the new millennium approached ratings began to tank.

 

You can only blame external factors so much before you have to take a long hard look at your show. Whenever there has been a jump the shark style thread, I notice many point to the late 90's as a poor period of their fave show, even if they feel there was a rebounding of some sort later on. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by will81

[DramatistDreamer]

 

They did leave a lot of money on the table but I feel as though they left that $$$ on the table ages ago. I think the best time to have capitalized on the success of these shows would have been 35-40 years ago.

 

I can see what you're saying about streaming but, I don't think P&G should specifically approach it as a profit-making venture, as they're likely to be disappointed (at least, in the early-going. They really need to engage people who will see this as a sort of passion-project. Focus on the preservation aspect, engage soap fans, serial Television fans, Broadcast industry people, preservationists and even Women's Studies people (because, Irna Phillips). Start there and build a bridge to other tthings.

 

 

Interesting points, @will81

That just goes to show that the reasons that we constantly hear seem more like something closer to myths that have become a kind of folklore.

A few of us on this board have mentioned the need for a Ken Burns-style docu-series on the history of the daytime drama (from radio to present day). Perhaps people could see the genre as being part of Broadcast history and it could get more respect. Graphic novels, comic books are just starting to get that type of attention over the last few years. The horroe genre too. Why not soaps?

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by DramatistDreamer

[FrenchBug82]

That's why I said "reasonable" success LOL I am well-aware there isn't a gazillion dollars on the table for it.
And that's why my pitch included a lot of things on top of the archives - including content surrounding the current shows.
I am not deluded all this would happen but if I had Bill Gates money, I'd create that foundation

[DramatistDreamer]

 

Remember, these are folks who dropped their soaps because they were no longer the huge 'cash cows' they once were. In order to get their episodes "streaming ready', it would require a real investment. Only if a P&G finds a partner to do all the heavy lifting in the process (kind of like the SoapClassics people but on a massive level), I don't see P&G lifting a finger.

[titan1978]

People forget it wasn’t just cable that was drawing away the soaps audiences- the decline happened as the TV talk explosion happened.  Which was truly the reality TV of its day.  I know everyone I knew when I was a teenager watched Ricki Lake, and only a few also or only watched soaps.

 

I think the issues almost always had to do with the quality of the shows declining.  I think several things happened all at once.  

The shows got really expensive- the biggest stars were making more money. Everything explodes in luxury in the early 1990’s- I watched six soaps across all three networks and they were lush in the early 1990’s.  I do think they had to up the production values at the time because they needed to stay current, but I think it added to their issues when the audience eroded.

The shows stopped being strongly writer driven and became much more under the creative control of the producer/network/production company.  Which was happening in prime time too- NBC’s must see tv period is full of instances of those shows dealing with empowered network people that used to leave them alone all of a sudden thinking they were part of the creative decisions on the shows.  This was happening on the highest viewed shows in the country at that point, daytime was not going to escape this.

 

The networks and production companies got rattled when OJ took away their audience, and panicked.  They started chasing a demo at all costs, and drove out a lot of the talent that didn’t want to fight all the time about every story approval, or be forced to change gears mid-point, or have focus groups tell them who should be used in story.  As early as 1998 or so it seemed like growing talent from within (especially writers) was no longer happening, in some instances because they saw how horrible it was dealing with the network.  When things had settled down, they were not at their earlier numbers, but still had solid numbers.  But everyone, network, soap media, everyone seemed to think all of a sudden they should be back at their all time highs, and because they were not it was over.  Enter hack writers, serial killers, shocking storylines and killing off/firing vets.

[Khan]

 

Exactly.  The O.J. trial didn't erode the audiences for soaps; how the networks responded did.  If they had simply rode it out, I think the numbers would've bounced back.  Maybe not to the same levels they were at BEFORE the trial, but close.

[KMan101]

What a fascinating discussion being had. Love it.

 

You're right, they never talk about the creative decisions and poor writing but then they'd have to own up to recycling hacks and owning poor decisions ... so they blame external factors.

 

Exactly: "how networks responded did"

 

The soaps all seemed to shift in 1996 to young and pretty. AMC dumped a bunch of vets. ATWT had models everywhere. Like the early 80s, we were back in a "we need young pretty people and get rid of the ew old people".

 

B&B/Y&R didn't suffer much because it still had Bill. Though I'd argue 1996/1997 weren't the strongest Bill years for Y&R but I'd take anything over the non-soap Y&R has become.

 

We lost clever, smart writing (yes we still had clunkers) and got ... cliched writing that continues today. I know people say 'they were copying Reilly' which is certainly true to an extent, but he could at least structure a story. Sure everyone was dumb as bricks ...

Edited February 20, 2021 by KMan101