November 8-12, 2010

[TeamEric]

And I've yet to find any link or article backing up claim THE TALK is enormously profitable.

But I have found this informative article on advertisers preferring daytime dramas to those cheap to produce talk and game shows:

http://www.thewrap.com/television/column-post/advertisers-saddened-daytime-soaps-continue-disappear-19005

"When CBS took "Guiding Light" off last fall, "Let's Make a Deal" replaced it. "Guiding Light" was averaging 1.7 million viewers in the hour, while two half-hours of "Deal" has averaged about 200,000 viewers more. Clearly, it's cheaper for the network to produce the game show, but that additional 200,000 viewers is not bringing in a ton more money from advertising."

Technically the "give" terms refers to programming rights. It means ABC "gave back" the affiliates the "right" to locally air whatever programming they chose in that timeslot.

[Saving ATWT]

CBS actually has a history of handing large amounts of time back to affiliates as they did with CBS This Morning with that dreadful local/national mix mash that preceded The Early Show and lasted about two years. Also, by the 1990's, even CBS-owed stations were flipping GL into the morning hours to exploit profit off the more lucrative 3pm slot with syndicated fare. (The irregular time slot for GL probably did more harm to the soap than any writer, EP or production model.)I know NBC stations had/have the right to shift their daytime schedule but CBS staions seem to have done this far more over the last decade.

I doubt ABC will ever expand GMA into the 9-10 slot due to Disney owning Live with Regis and Kelly and this show airing on so many ABC stations in the 9AM slot. The company makes a lot via syndicating this show and it is questionable whether an expanded hour of GMA would compete so well against Today. Granted, three hours of GMA followed by a syndicated Live and topped off with The View would make for a strong programming block on ABC-owned stations.

Does anyone know why both ABC and NBC gave back the 12:30-1:00 slot as opposed to developing new programming? I've always wondered why ABC didn't back AMC up to 12:30 to go head to head with Y&R. Port Charles might have done a lot better airing at 2:30 between OLTL and GH.

[bellcurve]

It's conjecture, it's not a claim nor proven fact, much like alot of your own theories.

Nice try, but that is clearly you spinning the article and picking quotes to substantiate your claim versus looking at the bigger picture. Nowhere in that article does it say advertisers prefer soaps over talk shows. That's simply the writer's assessment.

Plus...I guess you missed this when you were trying so hard to validate your point:

"If they are replacing a soap opera, a talk show like 'The View' or some other type of genre would be better than a game show," one media buyer told TheWrap.

Meaning that advertisers DO prefer talk shows as well. Advertisers want to appeal to a younger, female demographic. Game shows typically don't skew those kinds of numbers. But genre programs and talk shows do.

If that's the case, then ABC did that a LONG time ago. PC, before the 'year it was canceled' was airing graveyard or not at all in several markets; just like The City, just like Loving, and other shows.

So the "give" to the affiliates happened years, even decades before Boston decided to push PC into the graveyard. This isn't something new. I'm also willing to bet that if an affiliate wanted to air a syndicated show instead of OLTL at 2PM, ABC would allow them to do so.

[Saving ATWT]

As for TheWrap article about buyers and soaps, similiar articles popped up in newspapers across the country including Hearst's Albany Times Union and, I believe, for some reason, NY Times. Thus, this happens to be more than just an attitide of one ad buyer and seems to represent much of the industry. The article I read (and, no, I have no link, make no point of saving this junk) said something about education levels and demos which might be true when you contrast a show like 'Divorce Court AKA The Old and the Toothless' with any of the soaps. Demanding source material in here is a bit silly. Articles/editorials generally do not feature footnotes, not like anything on SON resembles a college thesis.

BTW, last week you asked me to 'provide proof' of SoapNet making profit from AMC, OLTL and GH but the thread had flipped over to this week before I had time to respond. Free content+ adverts+ cable cariage fees equals profit for SoapNet and, no, I have no article to post, this is pretty much common sense. The fact that SoapNet pays nothing for the shows yet collects ad sales (regardless of price) demonstrates that both Disney and the cable companies are making cash. The reason for dropping the network is that Disney knows that they will make even more from Disney Jr. This is very much along the lines of when Viacom killed TNN in favor of the phallus-Spike Network.

[BlueLick]

The problem is obvious and all points to the disappointment that AMC has become. The only good thing about AMC is that its production in HD is very good but outside of that the show is so unwatchable. AMC was a must-see show everyday before like 2006. Some will say the downward spiral started before then but it was still decent up until that point. Its getting to the point where I only see AMC for a few minutes every couple of weeks. Its sad what's happen to my show.

With ABC keeping OLTL around for a few more years I highly doubt ABC cuts its ties with AMC. AMC can still get it together it just needs some new direction and leadership plus some likable characters. I really wish the OLTL team can takeover AMC for a couple of years to get that ship going.

Like I said before if ABC can get its hands on Y&R and air it right before the rest of the ABC soaps the numbers can shoot back up.

The only network that I see cutting any soaps is CBS but Y&R and B&B aren't making it easy on them.

As for the other soaps I'm really enjoying OLTL and DAYS right now and I hope their upticks can keep growing but in larger numbers instead of weekly chuncks b/c they deserve it. GH is always stepping it up around sweeps time.

Is it just me or has The Talk died out?

[bellcurve]

Even with your argument(which you provide no articles/links/sources to substantiate), how the hell would comparing the auds for Divorce Court to a soap opera be relevant? Soaps' biggest audience is lower income, African-American, middle aged women. Source The demo that advertisers aren't targeting.

And it's interesting, you make no point of "saving this junk;" this junk that you like to paraphrase or quote in your lenghty, redundant, nonsensical narratives.

And not like your posts resemble a college thesis or, quite frankly, anything fresh or new, but I like to have sources or at least to know where someone read an article. I'd like to at least read it myself so I know for MYSELF what the "junk" states instead of taking your word as gospel.

I don't think it's silly at all to want a source.

I never asked you to provide proof that SOAPnet was making profit from AMC/OLTL/GH. Show me where I asked you that because I would remember...oh wait...nevermind. It's "silly" to you to do that.

And the reason why I doubt I ever asked you to provide proof of that is because, as you said...it's all common sense that SOAPnet would profit from their own material that they produce in-house.

"It's always the right time to have The Talk."

[Saving ATWT]

Many of us read a lot of material and paraphrase from the acquired information. I'm not citing with a annotated bibliography but, if you feel the need, go fact check any info I, or anyone else, post. I can sense, from your tone, why you idolize that shrew Nancy Grace.

As for TheWrap article or similiar reports, I doubt the source was trying to pimp any network agenda but represents a particular standpoint within the advert buying community.

[bellcurve]

And I can see, from your tone, why you were a fan of ATWT. So boring. Too bad we can't replace you with a talk show.

And it's not my job to fact-check anything. If I ask for a source it's because(as I've said before) I want to read it for myself to decide what my take on the article is instead of taking your spin and your word for it. But if you can't even remember the place where you read the article, how do I know that it's even valid information or something you just pulled out of your !@#$%^&*]?

By nature, we should all want to decide for ourselves what we believe is true vs. false. I don't think it's a bad thing to ask where you get your facts. Maybe you think it's a bad thing because alot of your stuff tends to be your own "hamster in a wheel" delusions of stuff we already know is true mixed with own stupid optimism/pessimism about a genre that may/may not be obsolete(both depending on what side of the bed you woke up on).

[Ann_SS]

LOL! The poster is like FOXNews. They are offended when people ask for their sources because they know their spin can't stand up to people reading it for themselves.

[bellcurve]

Exactly. There are alot of places where I've pulled stuff, including from other people's posts on MBs. Even if I don't have that particular magazine article to quote or that person's particular post to draw from, I at least remember the most important thing about the article, which is where I read it.

I'm not asking for a Works Cited document or footnotes. This isn't a classroom. But if you're gonna come here and boast and brag about the articles you read that support your claim, I'd prefer to read those articles and decide for myself what the writer/reporter was suggesting.

[Llantano Incorporated]

Bellcurve your avatar is killing me. KILLING me. LOL!

[marceline]

I've made my peace with the death of AMC. They got my hopes up earlier this year but as soon as S&K took over it became the same old BTDT trash. I know some people would rather have bad soaps than no soaps but I'd rather have no soaps than Frons' soaps.

Why do you say that? The big promo push is over but it seems to be holding its own. It's serving its purpose: filling an hour at less cost than its predecessor. I'm not sure what people thought it was going to do.

[DRW50]

I guess I expected more because of the press releases the first few weeks bragging about their numbers. I think there must have been more expectation from CBS than just a way to kill time cheap (reruns can do that), so to see it slip down into the same silence that LMAD has is strange.

[marceline]

Even if there is more expectation, nobody at CBS expected it to take off like a rocket in the first few weeks. Talk shows don't do that. ATWT/OLTL fans desperately want to call it a failure because that makes them feel vindicated/safe but it's not. It's doing exactly what its supposed to do: saving money. If this was about drawing big numbers or buzz they would've gotten at least one host who could do that. Barbara Walters had a following and a reputation. That's why ABC took a big chance on her with The View. None of these women have a following (hell most of them haven't even worked steadily) so its not like CBS was expecting them to be a big draw. The Talk is just another talk show and that's all it needs to be. It's pulling in the same numbers as ATWT at a fraction of the cost.

As for OLTL, my theory is that its ratings advantage comes mainly from the fact that people DVR soaps while they tend to watch talk shows live. I'd be interested to see the numbers for live viewing only. If I were a media buyer I would make a point of telling my clients that even though The Talk's numbers are lower, 90% of those people are watching the commercials. Half the people watching OLTL are zapping past them. That would actually make The Talk a better value.

[DRW50]

I see what you mean, marceline, but ABC had also had a lot of issues with their daytime lineup for many years, so there was less pressure for The View. ABC had had a string of flops (Home Show, Mike and Maty, Mommies -- were those ABC?), and then of course the money they gave to Loving/The City and one of the main sets for The City could now be put to better use. ABC had basically nothing to lose by putting The View on.

CBS is just transitioning out of their soaps, and ATWT was not seen as being as much of an albatross as GL was by the end. So to replace it with a show starring the wife of the guy who runs CBS, and to invite comparisons to The View, means they were building anticipation, IMO.

I don't expect the show to be a big hit, those take time to build, and I know that they are making more money than ATWT, but I am just surprised at how quickly silence has fallen over the show. From CBS as well as from the press. If it's already being consigned to the same cellar LMAD stays in, then I can't help thinking it's not what CBS wanted.