Has anyone here been following the development with the recently cancelled Aussie soap opera “Neighbors” being revived/rebooted through Amazon’s free streaming service?

How many years have I been saying that ad-supported streaming is a genuine possibility for classic daytime soaps? I feel like digging up my old thread in the Soaps section where I railed all about this, lol.

4 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Has anyone here been following the development with the recently cancelled Aussie soap opera “Neighbors” being revived/rebooted through Amazon’s free streaming service?

How many years have I been saying that ad-supported streaming is a genuine possibility for classic daytime soaps? I feel like digging up my old thread in the Soaps section where I railed all about this, lol.

Sure the Neighbors thread on Foreign Soaps Is talking about it non stop

4 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

How many years have I been saying that ad-supported streaming is a genuine possibility for classic daytime soaps? I feel like digging up my old thread in the Soaps section where I railed all about this, lol.

In fairness, that (streaming with ads) is what Hulu was at the time for AMC and OLTL; it was a cash flow/management issue there. But FreeVee is more explicitly ad-based and has no subscription fee or payment required whatsoever, which is even more convenient. You were ahead of everyone on FreeVee.

Edited November 18, 20223 yr by Vee

31 minutes ago, Joseph said:

Sure the Neighbors thread on Foreign Soaps Is talking about it non stop

I meant specifically ATWT fans. Yeah, I have popped into the Neighbors thread since the news was announced.

24 minutes ago, Vee said:

In fairness, that (streaming with ads) is what Hulu was at the time for AMC and OLTL; it was a cash flow/management issue there. But FreeVee is more explicitly ad-based and has no subscription fee or payment required whatsoever, which is even more convenient. You were ahead of everyone on FreeVee.

If AOL, which was a portal for ATWT streaming about a dozen years ago, hadn’t become such a fustercluck, I can only imagine where ATWT would have landed post-cancellation. Talk about being ahead of your time. The SoapsClassics people were streaming classic episodes of ATWT and GL, without ads though.

Geez, P&G truly could’ve benefited from ad-supported streaming of their soaps with the myriad of products they sell on the consumer market, but they have yet to show any sense of innovative intelligence!

On 11/13/2022 at 4:05 PM, Soapsuds said:

I was a fan of hers and Julia but it got tainted when she pretty much dissed ATWT in an interview she did.

Why isn’t she allowed to voice her opinion about her (negative?) work experience there?

 

Hell, Eileen did it for the last ten years of the show. 
 

Doesn’t make me think any less of them or taint them. 

On 11/18/2022 at 5:33 AM, DramatistDreamer said:

Has anyone here been following the development with the recently cancelled Aussie soap opera “Neighbors” being revived/rebooted through Amazon’s free streaming service?

How many years have I been saying that ad-supported streaming is a genuine possibility for classic daytime soaps? I feel like digging up my old thread in the Soaps section where I railed all about this, lol.

I'm with you. I've never bought that soaps aren't realistic on streaming services. The two reasons generally cited are the exact reasons they *would* be viable.

1. The volume of episodes. When Peacock picked the show up, they explicitly said they did it to drive year-round subscriptions. Bel Air was a breakout hit for them, but they only got a bump for one quarter when people tuned in to stream it and then cancelled. Since soaps air year round (and classic soaps have endless episodes), you have a better shot at customers keeping their subscriptions year round.

2. Cost. When you look at the cost of even a standard streaming show, you're looking at between $20 and $30 million for 8-10 episodes. Not to mention how high it becomes if it is one of the premium streaming series which can balloon to the hundreds of millions per season. Days' budget was reported as $29 million around 2010 so I'm sure it's lower now. I'm sure that's a win for Peacock compared to their other originals.

I think the biggest issue has always been a lack of interest. Soaps are the red headed step child so people haven't been willing to look into it, but I think the success of Days on Peacock (Errol said they're looking at a two-season pick up btw) and Neighbours will change things for soaps.

Now when it comes to P&G, there's no telling if they'll respond if contacted, but now would be the perfect time for them to be pitching to someone like Amazon. Even if it is just reruns of the classic episodes, I do think their library would be a hit for them.

11 minutes ago, Chris B said:

I'm with you. I've never bought that soaps aren't realistic on streaming services. The two reasons generally cited are the exact reasons they *would* be viable.

1. The volume of episodes. When Peacock picked the show up, they explicitly said they did it to drive year-round subscriptions. Bel Air was a breakout hit for them, but they only got a bump for one quarter when people tuned in to stream it and then cancelled. Since soaps air year round (and classic soaps have endless episodes), you have a better shot at customers keeping their subscriptions year round.

2. Cost. When you look at the cost of even a standard streaming show, you're looking at between $20 and $30 million for 8-10 episodes. Not to mention how high it becomes if it is one of the premium streaming series which can balloon to the hundreds of millions per season. Days' budget was reported as $29 million around 2010 so I'm sure it's lower now. I'm sure that's a win for Peacock compared to their other originals.

I think the biggest issue has always been a lack of interest. Soaps are the red headed step child so people haven't been willing to look into it, but I think the success of Days on Peacock (Errol said they're looking at a two-season pick up btw) and Neighbours will change things for soaps.

Now when it comes to P&G, there's no telling if they'll respond if contacted, but now would be the perfect time for them to be pitching to someone like Amazon. Even if it is just reruns of the classic episodes, I do think their library would be a hit for them.

P&G, more than any other company that has ever produced U.S. daytime soaps would benefit greatly, as they have a lot of consumer goods that they like to advertise and market to potential customers. They literally could run their own ads, much the same way Amazon runs ads for Echo on Freevee and IMDBTV before it. And the production costs would be relatively low since these are not new episodes— perhaps the cost of digitization for the remaining episodes not already digitized before 2000, SoapClassics already did a number of episodes, there may have been a number that were digitized but not released for sale because P&G yanked their license before they had the chance to release more collections. 
But yeah, in the case of P&G soaps, it wouldn’t even be like Days or Neighbors, more like The Doctors or B&B From the Beginning, streaming classic episodes.

Personally, I enjoy the curated clip show produced by OLTL and GL fans and YT.  Other than EON, I find the entire episodes of old soaps to be too slow, and given that I know the outcome, they lack intrigue.

I know it may be unpopular, but as we say in the field of psychological research, "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior", and history is filled with failed businesses that relied on soap opera content (see SoapNet, PopTV, Soap City, and the failing revenues of RetroTV for examples).

7 hours ago, j swift said:

Personally, I enjoy the curated clip show produced by OLTL and GL fans and YT.  Other than EON, I find the entire episodes of old soaps to be too slow, and given that I know the outcome, they lack intrigue.

I know it may be unpopular, but as we say in the field of psychological research, "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior", and history is filled with failed businesses that relied on soap opera content (see SoapNet, PopTV, Soap City, and the failing revenues of RetroTV for examples).

SOAPnet was successful in terms of ratings. What killed it was that they needed a place for Disney Junior. And I’m not sure I would consider RetroTV a failure. They invested in overhauling their app, they committed to The Doctors and they’ve even tried to license the P&G soaps. They wouldn’t be leaning in if it weren’t doing well. 

Just to clarify, Retro TV has lost 30% of their affiliates in the last five years (since Sinclair Media dropped them from their affiliate program).  It was off the air or downgraded to "zombie" channels in NYC, LA, and Chicago from 2015-2019.  They've been bought and sold three times each time for less money, and they've not posted a profit earning since 2008.  Now, that is clearly not the fault of The Doctor's alone, however it is not a successful business model.

Lionsgate bought the TV Guide channel to turn it into POPtv for $255 mill, then CBS bought 30% and began airing Y&R and B&B, then in 2019 CBS bought back the whole channel for $125 mil, less than half of the initial evaluation.  Again, not the soaps fault, but a loosing proposition.

SoapNet was launched in 2000, by 2004 they could no longer afford to produce original content like Soap Chat due to low ratings.  Within it's decade as a channel it lost carriage on Time Warner Cable due to poor performance, forcing Disney to change focus in order to save its other channels on the cable supply hub.  So, it wasn't just that Disney Jr needed a channel, the whole Disney cable system was in jeopardy if they didn't cease funding on a soap channel.

Hence, history is littered with the failed businesses that tried to cater to the niche soap audience.  Unlike public domain sitcoms, game shows, and religious programming that still draw enough viewers to support multiple channels from multiple investors.  Also, while streaming may be a different advertising model, they are still mostly created by established media corporations who have been burned before by trying to use soap content.

 

Edited November 20, 20223 yr by j swift

Thirty years ago today ...

 

Terrestrial broadcast television has obvious limitations, even when considering how digital substations have made broadcasting a bit more accessible cost wise. Streaming really offers a less expensive option, provided that you are NOT talking about producing original content.

 I am only talking streaming classic episodes, the way B&B is doing their From The Beginning episodes on their YouTube channel. The cost is likely negligible. They also run ads. It’s a no brainer.

47 minutes ago, Franko said:

Thirty years ago today ...

 

I know the Harpers were part of the Carolyn Crawford murder mystery, which is generally considered an unsuccessful storyline on Marland's part, but I've never heard much good or bad on the Sabrina/Tonio story that was happening at the same time.  Both plots seem to have gone on for roughly the same amount of time (wasn't this cliffhanger of Sabrina being shot at by a sniper only a week or so after the conclusion of the Crawford story, with Frannie witnessing Darryl or whoever crash through the attic window?), and I can never seem to get into scenes from either whenever I start watching an early '90s episode. 

I watched more of Sabrina in this episode than I otherwise might have because I'd just listened to the Kathy Hays tribute interview and remembered Claire Beckman talking about Peter Boynton.  Hearing her speak without the accent underscored how off-putting it was for me to have both actors who were clearly raised in the U.S. playing this geopolitical intrigue (plus the cringe factor of the fictional Latin American country).  But it also just seems like the kind of material that GH or DAYS or OLTL would have been doing around this time - grafted onto Marland's ATWT.  Is there something I'm missing?

Come on guys. BE REALISTIC. A couple thousand views doesn't mean success. Cancelled soaps will never bring $$ to the owners. They are dead. Gone. 

(*whispers*) Thread killa.