If they're going to be cheapskates and fill those slots with non-scripted programming, spare us a bunch of G-listers sitting around flapping their gums and make those fools get off their sadity asses and play Win, Lose or Draw for my entertainment.

MarkH, that graph is almost comical. Like something out of an SNL sketch.

But Jack, do you think the lunch break thing will really figure in when we're probably talking about people watching little black and white TVs at their cubicles with no Nielsen hookup? I agree that GH for what it is would be fine without the other two. GH fans are GH fans, period, and like it or not, there are probably a healthy amount of people who in spite of themselves will be soap hungry and put their AMC/OLTL eggs in GH's basket. There are also a lot of passive TV watchers out there, young and particularly old, many of which don't even have cable, and they'll have the tube on playing whatever they plug into those 1pm and 2pm Eastern slots. Some of them will have Nielsen boxes.

The real question is how many will tune in waiting for the slaughter of children or the decapitation of a random cast member from Charles in Charge, and then turn the channel in horror when they get a glimpse of poor Tori's plastic surgery.

Mark I hope you post in the Y&R thread more often. I'd especially love to see you in the Y&R history thread.

SON Report

Brian Frons: The Ball is in Your Court

I think Agnes still cares - she was so choked up during the anniversary celebration video on The View - but both her shows ran for over 40 years and that's a huge accomplishment, and she's had a great life where she's had friends, family, a successful career. I think she will take it better than a lot of fans will.

Oh she definitely still cares... When you see her speak about soaps and, yes, AMC in particular she still is aware of what's going on in the show, she still seems quite passionate about it even if she really doesn't have the strength (or power) to interfere too much.

I dunno, I do think that it would make more sense to stagger the cancelations, if even by a year, and not lose all those viewers at once. I know people are gonna argue that, but I think there'd be more chance of keeping more viewers--even for GH if that's the long term goal, if they canceled AMC first and then OLTL or whatever.

This was the reason given for why Soapnet got so much reality programming. Yet Disney did not hesitate to replace it with Disney Jr.

I think there's always something to lose. More viewers moving away from the overall lineup - or, as is the case with what CBS daytime was facing, older viewers replacing younger viewers. LMAD somehow managed to have a worse 18-49 demo than GL the last time I saw their ratings - maybe things improved since then, I don't know.

I just don't believe that Tori Spelling or The View for Men are going to bring buzz or attract new viewers. ABC is only good at drawing away viewers. They have had approximately one popular reality show and about a dozen failures, and some of their failures were wretched.

I really think if the soaps are going, original programming might as well go too. The networks don't know how to find popular talk or reality programs for daytime. Even The View only became popular after quite a few years, and no network would be that patient now.

The only ones who would even be asked are Budig, Easton, and Mathison.

ABC has watched what CBS has done and has seen what has worked and what hasn't worked. Based on what they've watched CBS do they have made the best decision possible given the current situation. CBS is doing fine having replaced GL and ATWT with LMAD & The Talk, they aren't in a rush to change anything over there at CBS so the risk was either a lateral move financially or an improvement. I do not have enough insight in to the network operations of CBS so I really can't speak on whats going on over there. ABC has thought this through and based on the declining ratings, inflated production costs of the soaps, and advertisers spending their money more conservatively ABC has to make a drastic change like this. If this change was going to negatively impact their finances they wouldnt do it. Regardless of the lower ratings the new shows could draw the cheaper production model and the appeal of a new programming block to viewers and advertisers would balance out to a lateral move in the worst case scenario.

I think Tori paired with the right co-host could work as like a later in the morning Regis & Kelly. The male version of The View has FLOP written all over it, the target audience for that kind of program doesn't exist in daytime. If you were to get rid of original programming in daytime what would you suggest they replace it with?

As for who could migrate over to GH... I agree with you on Budig & Easton. Mathison has a future in hosting shows and events (Tori & Cameron?), he wouldn't do it. I could see Dr. Hayward joining the staff at General Hospital. JR Chandler relocating to Port Charles (GH would be able to utilize sky with some more family-ish ties on the canvas). I could see a bunch of AMC characters fitting in to GH and I think any of the AMC actors would be a great addition to GH. It would break up the monotony of the constant mob/hospital loop of drama. As for OLTL... Characters I could see moving over to Port Charles are pretty much the younger Buchanan set. I don't see any other characters fitting in well on the canvas. As for the actors, like the AMC actors, I think any of them would be a welcome addition to GH. Some integration of characters and actors from AMC & OLTL in to GH would shake things up and give it a creative jolt. Being a one soap network, ABC will be able to focus on GH more and I'm sure the final product will be an improvement over what currently airs.

But Jack, do you think the lunch break thing will really figure in when we're probably talking about people watching little black and white TVs at their cubicles with no Nielsen hookup? I agree that GH for what it is would be fine without the other two. GH fans are GH fans, period, and like it or not, there are probably a healthy amount of people who in spite of themselves will be soap hungry and put their AMC/OLTL eggs in GH's basket. There are also a lot of passive TV watchers out there, young and particularly old, many of which don't even have cable, and they'll have the tube on playing whatever they plug into those 1pm and 2pm Eastern slots. Some of them will have Nielsen boxes.

Again, look at Y&R and B&B. I'm not saying it will make a drastic change in the ratings but it definitely wont hurt them, it would probably provide a modest ratings bump.

ABC makes money from their soaps more than CBS or NBC because they outright own them. They don't have to share any and all money the soap makes with partners like P&G or Sony. They could keep the shows on the air for years more and still make money but it comes down to greed (they're not making as much as they used to from the soaps) and wanting to get out of the business. IMO, the networks are more than happy with the idea of a one soap daytime schedule. CBS & NBC are basically one soap networks now, putting the half hour soap aside.

If Michael Logan's story is accurate, I don't feel we're getting the full year apart cancellation which was a given had AMC got a cancellation this year or next EVEN had OLTL never come into the cancellation conversation in that time. I think it may be 4-6 months apart or possibly at the same time.

The demos are so weak for all the soaps besides Y&R that much any "creative" program can replace them at this point and have a chance of getting at least as much of the desired viewers. The extra benefit is that reality shows, game shows and talks shows would be much cheaper to produce.

I know this is severe retardation on my part, but I can't help bringing it up. Wouldn't it make more sense to counterprogram with a soap than to put ANOTHER talk show on? I guess the reality show *could* be something "different", but to me it actually would make some weird kind of sense to stick to soaps at least for a bit when the other networks have talk shows on at the time...

But it is undeniable that even though I suspect a talk show or reality show would do slightly less well rating wise--the cheapness of making them offsets that.

I am over the rumors. Give me a buzz when the cancellation is confirmed by the network.

I do agree, this rumour from Logan himself would mean a lot more if we had ONE source named, etc. It's gotten pretty preposterous.

Oh she definitely still cares... When you see her speak about soaps and, yes, AMC in particular she still is aware of what's going on in the show, she still seems quite passionate about it even if she really doesn't have the strength (or power) to interfere too much.

I dunno, I do think that it would make more sense to stagger the cancelations, if even by a year, and not lose all those viewers at once. I know people are gonna argue that, but I think there'd be more chance of keeping more viewers--even for GH if that's the long term goal, if they canceled AMC first and then OLTL or whatever.

I've had the pleasure of meeting Agnes on several occasions and I can tell you she is on top of both shows and knows them in and out like she's written every episode since Episode #0001. She is remarkable and truly cares about these shows, they are essentially her children. As much as she cares though she is rational and knows that nothing is forever.

I think the shows should both go at once. ABC should utilize cross promotion and do a massive cross over in the final weeks. Move some characters to Port Charles, therefore moving some viewers over to continue watching GH to see the story play out and watch a bit of OLTL and AMC live on. My most unpopular opinion, have McT come back to write AMC in to the sunset. As bad as she can be creatively she knows this show like no one else and really loves the show. With nothing left to lose I say bring her back and let her write whatever she wants, total creative control.

It's just hard to gauge the decision making, like, to what degree does the empathy and more likely the apathy for the fans play into this, what are calculated money making/saving moves and what are boneheaded decisions? I'd say that more transparency on their part would be good for their viewers, giving us a better understanding of why things play out the way they do which could in fact earn our respect and dare I say loyalty. But I don't believe that they care enough about the viewer, and they're too protective of their own asses fearing that fingers will be pointed, names will be named.

Again, look at Y&R and B&B. I'm not saying it will make a drastic change in the ratings but it definitely wont hurt them, it would probably provide a modest ratings bump.

It's not going to happen, and GH moving to 1pm against more soap competiton isn't a smart move. GH's ratings are going to nosedive. This is not a Y&R or DAYS situation where the show is far more higher rated than its companion soaps.

I know this is severe retardation on my part, but I can't help bringing it up. Wouldn't it make more sense to counterprogram with a soap than to put ANOTHER talk show on? I guess the reality show *could* be something "different", but to me it actually would make some weird kind of sense to stick to soaps at least for a bit when the other networks have talk shows on at the time...

But it is undeniable that even though I suspect a talk show or reality show would do slightly less well rating wise--the cheapness of making them offsets that.

Sadly there is not enough interest in daytime soaps to justify the costs of developing and producing a new soap. The last new soaps we saw were Port Charles and Passions. Both shows had decent runs but never amounted to much ratings wise. Their cancelation is what started the trend of canceling and not replacing the soaps. Why cancel a mediocre soap and take a a financial risk on a new program that will perform the same, or possibly worse. It takes a lot of money to develop a new soap from scratch and at this time the networks cannot risk it. Talk shows and reality shows are the new fad, they will replace soaps just like soaps replaced game shows. After 10-20 years talk shows and reality will fade out and something else will come along.

I don't think reality shows will ever have much of a foothold in daytime. NBC already tried one (Starting Over) and it failed, and they haven't tried again. Talk shows also generally fail.

I think daytime programming is just going to get lower and lower ratings until the networks finally give up.

Edited April 2, 201114 yr by CarlD2

It's just hard to gauge the decision making, like, to what degree does the empathy and more likely the apathy for the fans play into this, what are calculated money making/saving moves and what are boneheaded decisions? I'd say that more transparency on their part would be good for their viewers, giving us a better understanding of why things play out the way they do which could in fact earn our respect and dare I say loyalty. But I don't believe that they care enough about the viewer, and they're too protective of their own asses fearing that fingers will be pointed, names will be named.

ABC is not in the business of making friends, they are in the business of making money. Network television is a business, money is involved. There are investors that want a return on their investments. There are board members to appease. This decision is not a hatred for soaps or the fans, it is a business decision so the network can remain sustainable. I don't believe transparency is needed in this situation, there are a lot of factors that play in to decisions like this and lots of privileged information. I guarantee there are very few people that know the logic behind this decision, and they are the only ones that need to know.

Darn, I always post in the wrong thread. I will just repeat myself. This whole time I was not buying that AMC would EVER go before OLTL. This rumor actually sounds spot on to me. It just sounds like something ABC would do. And that PR person's response is downright scary.