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), 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.

The Talk deserves to the be in the cellar. It's a cheap ripoff of the View. It's numbers are worse than ATWT now.

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.

After researching the subject with MEDIA buyers the writer makes an assessment of the current ad trends. Try reading AD WEEK they are filled with such writers making assessment of current trends.

And really is there any need for your snarky nice try and sarcastic tone? Let's keep this civil debate on point, please.

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.

No I didn't miss it as I specifically stated earlier media buyers prefer soaps to TALK and GAME game shows.

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.

Game shows skew far older that's true.

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.

I have a good friend at WCVB-5 in Boston so that's the source of my info on how ABC affiliate contracts work.

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.

I'll try to find the old link but it was Michael Logan in TV GUIDE who noted PC losing its guaranteed time slot doomed it to cancellation. Back then, falling under a certain ratings point meant affiliates could drop the timeslot.

And you'd be very wrong on an affiliate having any choice to break up ABC's 3 hour block especially b/c ads often get packaged together for the larger advertisers. You can make a buy for all 3 hours, 2 hours or just 1.

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.

Actually, marceline, I keep reading The Talk is making way more than ATWT but have yet to read that claim substantiated anywhere. What's it's 30 second ad rate compared to ATWT? Are they retaining majority of ATWT premium advertisers or getting the smaller cheaper companies? Are they are luring any new advertisers contracts? Those are all questions I would need answered before judging their advertising revenue is on par with ATWT.

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.

Half the people watching OLTL are watching on DVR? Where do you get that statistic?

Toups, can you please post just DVR+ same day numbers. I've seen the overnights come in at 1.5-1.6 so the DVR's add approx +.2 each week.

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).

Can't think of anything more boring that watching Nancy Grace slander the innocent while chowing down on WACHAI FERRY but that's another story...

I read a lot of material, too much counting my work, but will make an effort to link articles appropriate for someone with a low level of reading comprehension such as yourself. Clearly you have a reduced skill set given your limited/incorrect understanding of the term 'give back' as it relates to networks and affiliates.

If you can't be smart why waste time over-compensating by being a smart ass?

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.

It's fair to say that, by hiring Chen, CBS probably had high hopes for The Talk. CBS could have just done another game show block if the pursuit were just about steady, yet low, demos/ratings. It should be noted that The Talk is actually off to a stronger start than The View's debut season.

Can't think of anything more boring that watching Nancy Grace slander the innocent while chowing down on WACHAI FERRY but that's another story...

I read a lot of material, too much counting my work, but will make an effort to link articles appropriate for someone with a low level of reading comprehension such as yourself. Clearly you have a reduced skill set given your limited/incorrect understanding of the term 'give back' as it relates to networks and affiliates.

If you can't be smart why waste time over-compensating by being a smart ass?

I'm sure if that hamster in a wheel that you call a brain would just stop rolling for five seconds, it'd be able to come up with something more interesting to note other than my appreciation for Nancy Grace.

I'm pretty sure I understand what the general term "give back" means in terms of affiliates, even if TeamEric had to "clarify" that for me. I also think, out of any of us that post on SON, you're the one with the low level of comprehension. You crank out the same tired ass posts about ratings, the same tired ass racist/classist/homophobic comments that are supposed to be ironic since you're a gay liberal minority type, and your incoherent ramblings resemble those of someone who has stayed up for three days straight snorting meth and downing cans of Four Loko.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong or when I'm deficient. But I find it interesting that I could be called a moron by someone who, as far as I can tell, does such a bad job at stringing together a coherent, original thought.

I can do research for myself. I just wanna make sure that you got your facts straight when you spend ten to fifteen pages going off about a topic that you know little-to-nothing about.

Edited November 22, 201015 yr by bellcurve

After researching the subject with MEDIA buyers the writer makes an assessment of the current ad trends. Try reading AD WEEK they are filled with such writers making assessment of current trends.

Fair enough.

No I didn't miss it as I specifically stated earlier media buyers prefer soaps to TALK and GAME game shows.

I guess that's your perception of the article. I still feel that ad buyers don't mind talk shows. They want anything that will skew the younger, female demo. I don't think advertisers prefer anything one way or the other. Their preference is for the 18-49 female. And unless the show is something like Wheel of Fortune or Today Hour Four, there's a likelihood that they're probably doing the same demo numbers as a daytime soap(Y&R being the obvious exception). Again, that's just my take on the article.

I have a good friend at WCVB-5 in Boston so that's the source of my info on how ABC affiliate contracts work.

Thanks for the info...

I'll try to find the old link but it was Michael Logan in TV GUIDE who noted PC losing its guaranteed time slot doomed it to cancellation. Back then, falling under a certain ratings point meant affiliates could drop the timeslot.

I don't understand how that would work because even before the story arcs, PC didn't get station clearance on all ABC affiliates. Did they have to ask ABC's blessing to do that, did they go rogue and do it without ABC's permission?

And you'd be very wrong on an affiliate having any choice to break up ABC's 3 hour block especially b/c ads often get packaged together for the larger advertisers. You can make a buy for all 3 hours, 2 hours or just 1.

There are a couple of affiliates in Texas and Louisiana already that air AMC a day behind to shove hourlong newscasts in the 1PM/Noon Central hour. Again, did they have to get ABC's permission to do that or is an affiliate allowed to program those three hours in any fashion?

I'm sorry if I was nasty to you. There are some people on this board(I'm SAVING myself from mentioning their names) that post alot of baseless bullsh*t as fact without anything to back it up. You'll have to forgive me for doubting the validity of some of your statements.

I'm sure if that hamster in a wheel that you call a brain would just stop rolling for five seconds, it'd be able to come up with something more interesting to note other than my appreciation for Nancy Grace.

I'm pretty sure I understand what the general term "give back" means in terms of affiliates, even if TeamEric had to "clarify" that for me. I also think, out of any of us that post on SON, you're the one with the low level of comprehension. You crank out the same tired ass posts about ratings, the same tired ass racist/classist/homophobic comments that are supposed to be ironic since you're a gay liberal minority type, and your incoherent ramblings resemble those of someone who has stayed up for three days straight snorting meth and downing cans of Four Loko.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong or when I'm deficient. But I find it interesting that I could be called a moron by someone who, as far as I can tell, does such a bad job at stringing together a coherent, original thought.

I can do research for myself. I just wanna make sure that you got your facts straight when you spend ten to fifteen pages going off about a topic that you know little-to-nothing about.

Is that really the best you can do?

Not into sugar coatings, especially for people, like yourself, who have a comprehension void. Seeing as I've experienced certain things first hand, I have no problem pointing out the "tired ass racist/classist/homophobic comments" and actions of networks, advertisers and even audience. Each of us as viewers, based on gender, race, income, race, class, ect., is placed into a certain demographic category and then assigned a monetary value. One does not need to be an "ironic...gay liberal minority type" to recognize, understand or acknowledge that, unfortunately, this is how media misguidedly functions. Furthermore, before screaming, shouting and metaphorically killing the messenger, go research the topic because there is ample information available.

I guess, in addition to "give back", you don't understand how demography in media works, either. Bellcurve, you are in so many ways beyond deficient.

So, what exactly do you have against the "gay liberal minority type"? Clue me in, share those angry little echos you call thoughts. Hopefully, for once, you'll come up with an original idea.

Edited November 22, 201015 yr by Saving ATWT

Is that really the best you can do?

No, but if you're asking that question, then obviously that's the best that you can do.

Half the people watching OLTL are watching on DVR? Where do you get that statistic?

Toups, can you please post just DVR+ same day numbers. I've seen the overnights come in at 1.5-1.6 so the DVR's add approx +.2 each week.

Okay hold up. That wasn't me quoting a statistic. That was me being colloquial. As in "Why do half the threads on this board turn into inane fights about OLTL?" Like I said, it's a theory. Don't pull me into the madness that is the Llanview Inquisition seeking to root out and exterminate all opposition. What's next? "Do you now or have you ever watched The Talk? Did you like it? Do you know of anyone who has watched and enjoyed The Talk? If so GIVE US THEIR NAMES! Do it now or I will turn your lovely daughter over to my men: John, Todd and Rex!!"

Edited November 22, 201015 yr by marceline

I guess that's your perception of the article. I still feel that ad buyers don't mind talk shows. They want anything that will skew the younger, female demo. I don't think advertisers prefer anything one way or the other. Their preference is for the 18-49 female. And unless the show is something like Wheel of Fortune or Today Hour Four, there's a likelihood that they're probably doing the same demo numbers as a daytime soap(Y&R being the obvious exception). Again, that's just my take on the article.

I am sorry but I find the writer's first 2 paragraphs are very clear:

"As daytime soaps move toward extinction, it's not just restless housewives and the unemployed who suffer -- it's advertisers, who prefer soaps to the game and talk shows that are replacing them.

"Though the alternatives are cheaper and easier for networks to produce, media buyers tell TheWrap that soaps are still one of the most cost-effective buys on broadcast television."

I do agree all media buyers really care about is chasing the younger demo. So if a talk show is attractive to those demos they'll flock to them.

I don't understand how that would work because even before the story arcs, PC didn't get station clearance on all ABC affiliates. Did they have to ask ABC's blessing to do that, did they go rogue and do it without ABC's permission?

It's complicated b/c not all ABC affiliates sign the same contract. ABC employs a tiered system. PC still held its guaranteed timeslot in one of the top market tiers. Then PC fell below ratings threshold and Boston and I believe it was Chicago affiliate could exercise clause to move their timeslot.

I'm sorry if I was nasty to you.

Apology accepted.

Though I only joined SON a few months ago, ratings statistics been a hobby of mine since 1999 and posted about them for years on Soapzone.

Okay hold up. That wasn't me quoting a statistic. That was me being colloquial. As in "Why do half the threads on this board turn into inane fights about OLTL?" Like I said, it's a theory. Don't pull me into the madness that is the Llanview Inquisition seeking to root out and exterminate all opposition. What's next? "Do you now or have you ever watched The Talk? Did you like it? Do you know of anyone who has watched and enjoyed The Talk? If so GIVE US THEIR NAMES! Do it now or I will turn your lovely daughter over to my men: John, Todd and Rex!!"

LOL

Honestly, marceline, I'll never understand cheerleading for the demise of a soap just because you hate it now. I get protesting crappy writing, I did that too when I helped in the boycott against JFP's destruction of OLTL. But I never cheered for OLTL cancellation even then. I just finally turned it off for several years.

Edited November 22, 201015 yr by TeamEric

No, but if you're asking that question, then obviously that's the best that you can do.

Huge difference between actually being smart and attempting to look bright through use of pathetic smart ass comments. You have a problem getting past the headline or sound bite and this lack of rigor generally makes for a blowhard. As for your above remark, it's hackneyed and without wit: The very sort of thing one would expect from somebody who reads without comprehension.

I suggest you do a basic Google search on Media Demographics, check out the research commissioned by the NAACP or even just go to Wiki and read up on Demography before you ever again sound off like the SON village idiot by slandering anyone as racist, homophobic or classist. It's no wonder that you and your pathetic comments are the subject of so many SON emails and conversations.

Again, what did you mean when you called me the "liberal gay minority type"? I'm actually flattered but what were you inferring?