The difference between modern day and the golden age of soaps is that not as many people are home during the day any more. Yes there is still an audience but it is nothing like it was. The size of the audience isnt substantial enough to justify a large financial investment in to a new scripted program. Then when you take in to account peoples attention span now compared to 30 years ago. There are cell phones, the internet, 100's of channels to find programming, viewers attention is being pulled in every direction. Your average viewer cannot invest the time in to long term stories. Thats why talk shows are a great alternative. Cheaper to produce than soaps and it requires no investment from the viewer, they don't have to watch every day. No story to keep up with. The reality shows require some investment from the viewer but they run in such short cycles that it's a minimal investment of time.

What do you think about a cheapo series that aired as little as once a week in daytime? With the amount of primetime reruns that air in the day, is the notion of that really all that crazy? I realize the difference between daytime and primetime, the most glaring factor being that more people are home during the night, but I can't help but feel that the death of scripted drama in daytime is only the beginning. Why make time for anything these days? You don't even have to invest in the newest series b/c it will most certainly pop up on the network's website, Netflix, or at the very least, YouTube if it only survives an episode or two. No one has to invest in any series anymore, we can always "get to it later." So maybe there is at least a shred of resolution in asking your audience to make less of an investment, i.e. cutting down the number of days per week a soap airs. This kind of talk makes me sick actually because I'm really turned off by the turn our collective selves has taken. This death of attention span shouldn't just be given a free pass as "a sign of the times", it's a social sickness. Definitely not a good look for our children. And when you match short attention spans with crap writing, I mean damn, we can't win for losing.

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.

I'm a big McTavish defender on here, as much as I do think she's half brilliant at AMC and half detrimental. But cmon--Lorraine Broderick knows the show at least as well, without Frons interfering couldn't she write it off? And I know Agnes genuinely doesn't have the strength but for all those ridiculous ghost writing dreams of fans, wouldn't it be great if she could write the final month, or the final week, or Hell the final episode?

So then my question is, why does the network deserve our viewership at all? We don't watch television to make the networks money. We watch television to be entertained. If our investment is so irrelevant, who and what are they in the business for but themselves? To paraphrase Meisner, Television is a freaky paradoxical business.

Well to entertain you, the viewer, it costs the networks money to develop and acquire programming to keep you entertained. Their money comes from the advertising revenue and that is determined by the ratings of the show during the pivotal sweeps months. So while you don't watch tv to make the networks money you inadvertently do by watching to be entertained. Your investment is not irrelevant but times have changed and it is the soaps themselves that have become irrelevant.

Are there any successful talk shows now? It seems like most of them are gone or going. I guess there's The View but that's more of a panel show and it seems like that isn't as popular as it used to be.

I don't think Frons would want RC at General Hospital. I think he only put up with RC at One Life to Live because he didn't care about the show anyway.

I think viewers are as invested in long-term stories as ever, they just have different outlets.

There are ways to have daytime dramas that don't have long-term stories, and just maintain a few long-term characters, if anyone made an effort. I think that would pay off more than ABC's new version of Are You Hot? or All American Girl.

Successful talk shows currently on.... The View and Ellen are big hits. Oprah is on her way out next month. Dr. Oz is pretty strong. Wendy Williams has a strong following and DebMar Mercury is making a killing of cable re-airings and Wendy is a huge hit internationally. The Talk is modestly successful. Regis & Kelly are a morning staple. Rachel Ray holds he own but nothing stellar. These are just whats popping in to my head right now.

I don't think Frons "put up" with RC at OLTL. RC is very passionate about the show and knows the show very well, he worked his way up to where he is and despite the popular opinion is very good at his job. Its the network meddling that gets in the way.

Daytime dramas are done. Over. Fin. The End. It is not a viable option in the current television environment. The format and genre worked in 1950-1990 but things changed, people changed, the world changed and now it's just not viable. It comes down to the cost for programming original scripted content 5 days a week does not provide the same return on investment that i once had. Viewership is down, advertising dollars are down. It's easier to go with a talk show or reality show. If it flops you bring something new in and arent out too much money.

I always thought GH benefitted from being after school everywhere but the West Coast. It seems so futile for OLTL to base half+ of their stories for a teen audience when it's on when most are in school...

Exactly. I hear the school bus drop the high schoolers off outside my office window every day at 2:30 on the dot. When I was in high school (no cable in my room), I watched the last part of OLTL and GH every day I didn't have some after school activity. I grew up on AMC, but only caught it if my mom taped. The Stone/Robin s/l was very popular amongst my classmates and I loved OLTL's DID stuff though that of course wasn't a teen s/l.

What do you think about a cheapo series that aired as little as once a week in daytime? With the amount of primetime reruns that air in the day, is the notion of that really all that crazy? I realize the difference between daytime and primetime, the most glaring factor being that more people are home during the night, but I can't help but feel that the death of scripted drama in daytime is only the beginning. Why make time for anything these days? You don't even have to invest in the newest series b/c it will most certainly pop up on the network's website, Netflix, or at the very least, YouTube if it only survives an episode or two. No one has to invest in any series anymore, we can always "get to it later." So maybe there is at least a shred of resolution in asking your audience to make less of an investment, i.e. cutting down the number of days per week a soap airs. This kind of talk makes me sick actually because I'm really turned off by the turn our collective selves has taken. This death of attention span shouldn't just be given a free pass as "a sign of the times", it's a social sickness. Definitely not a good look for our children. And when you match short attention spans with crap writing, I mean damn, we can't win for losing.

A series that airs once a week in daytime, what do you do the other 4 days? Or when you run out of originals? Do you run reruns? Do you invest in more programming? Daytime is a completely different animal than primetime, always has been, and always will be.

I'm a big McTavish defender on here, as much as I do think she's half brilliant at AMC and half detrimental. But cmon--Lorraine Broderick knows the show at least as well, without Frons interfering couldn't she write it off? And I know Agnes genuinely doesn't have the strength but for all those ridiculous ghost writing dreams of fans, wouldn't it be great if she could write the final month, or the final week, or Hell the final episode?

Broderick is great for history and writing character driven, not plot driven stories. McTavish is great for big events and large stunts, while she tends to be more of a plot driven writer it works with the characters that she always tended to mainly write for. The one reason I would choose McT over LB is McT's ability to write for Erica and the Kanes. LB was great with the rest of the canvas but no other writer brought Erica Kane to life like McTavish. A Broderick/McTavish swan song would be phenomenal, with Agnes consulting AMAZING.

Well IF BOTH Are Canceled I Wonder If ABC Will Keep Them In Production Until December and Last air them in Jan 2012 and start the talk/Reality Shows In February 2012

Well IF BOTH Are Canceled I Wonder If ABC Will Keep Them In Production Until December and Last air them in Jan 2012 and start the talk/Reality Shows In February 2012

They would most likely end in the September/October timeframe with the new shows on the air by November.

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.

That said, I think networks are going about it all wrong. They're terrified by cable stealing many of their viewers right? Yet they do stuff that drives people to cable.

EVen with few viewers, I firmly believe soaps still have a more loyal fan base than the Tori Spelling show ever would have. And brand loyalty is precisely what has made HBO and now even a small station like Starz a hit. Network on the other hand has become infamous--at least among my friends--for canceling shows they like after 3 episodes without giving them a chance, etc. As network tv becomes more and more cancel heavy they lose more and more viewers--and yes thtis is much more primetime but daytime plays a part. I honestly know a lot of people who refuse to give a new show I recomment a try if they find out it's on a network that canceled a beloved show of theirs (Oh, it's on Fox? Ever since they canceled Firefly after 11 episodes I can't trust myself to get into a show on there--I'll wait for the dvds if it lasts, etc). While cable has canceled a few shows early, people NEVER think that way about it. I know so many people who if they hear a show is on HBO automatically give it a chance maybe they wouldn't have before, for example. More and more network tv will simply become a place to flip to when you get home and are making dinner--not when you're sitting down watching something.

Broderick is great for history and writing character driven, not plot driven stories. McTavish is great for big events and large stunts, while she tends to be more of a plot driven writer it works with the characters that she always tended to mainly write for. The one reason I would choose McT over LB is McT's ability to write for Erica and the Kanes. LB was great with the rest of the canvas but no other writer brought Erica Kane to life like McTavish. A Broderick/McTavish swan song would be phenomenal, with Agnes consulting AMAZING.

I could dig that (I wonder if Broderick and McT would work together for the sake of the final months of the show? LOL)(

Exactly. I hear the school bus drop the high schoolers off outside my office window every day at 2:30 on the dot. When I was in high school (no cable in my room), I watched the last part of OLTL and GH every day I didn't have some after school activity. I grew up on AMC, but only caught it if my mom taped. The Stone/Robin s/l was very popular amongst my classmates and I loved OLTL's DID stuff though that of course wasn't a teen s/l.

AMC was ace for me cuz in elementary school/Jr High I'd walk home for lunch, so I could watch most of it (I'd miss maybe 15 mins) every day, though eventually I started taping it to catch all. But that's West Coast (though Agnes has often said that in the past many of the OLTL viewers watched at lunch break).

That said, I think networks are going about it all wrong. They're terrified by cable stealing many of their viewers right? Yet they do stuff that drives people to cable.

EVen with few viewers, I firmly believe soaps still have a more loyal fan base than the Tori Spelling show ever would have. And brand loyalty is precisely what has made HBO and now even a small station like Starz a hit. Network on the other hand has become infamous--at least among my friends--for canceling shows they like after 3 episodes without giving them a chance, etc. As network tv becomes more and more cancel heavy they lose more and more viewers--and yes thtis is much more primetime but daytime plays a part. I honestly know a lot of people who refuse to give a new show I recomment a try if they find out it's on a network that canceled a beloved show of theirs (Oh, it's on Fox? Ever since they canceled Firefly after 11 episodes I can't trust myself to get into a show on there--I'll wait for the dvds if it lasts, etc). While cable has canceled a few shows early, people NEVER think that way about it. I know so many people who if they hear a show is on HBO automatically give it a chance maybe they wouldn't have before, for example. More and more network tv will simply become a place to flip to when you get home and are making dinner--not when you're sitting down watching something.

The issue is that society has changed, technology has changed, and network television still operates like its 1950 and there is only 3 networks. They've been slowly working out of this mentality in recent years but daytime has remained stagnant with the 1950's mentality. Cable is different because the way they operate was established with more competition already in place, their method works better but now they are having similar issues with programing becoming available online Its a vicious cycle.

While soaps might have a more loyal fanbase its not about fanbases, its about general appeal. A Tori Spelling talk show would have more mass appeal than a soap opera. While loyalty is important, mass appeal is more important for attracting advertisers and viewers. Your HBO/Network TV comparison makes interesting points but remember, networks get their revenue from ad dollars which is determined by the ratings. HBO gets their revenue from subscription dollars from cable subscriptions to HBO, they dont need to worry if people are watching as long as their paying.

Other than soaps and live programs (like news, sports and competitive reality shows), the majority of what I watch is time shifted and in some cases for years. I watch other things on the fly, but I have zero loyalty to any station. I'm one of those people who seldom tries a new show on a network due to programs I like being cancelled too quickly. At least when shows go away quickly on cable most of the time they make 10-13 episodes and air all of them. It isn't 2 shows and then gone.

I think that ABC doesn't care about long term loyalty and just short term money gains. It depends on how well the whole Disney owned stations do as well as other properties, because other divisions may balance things out in some ways.

Oh I do honestly get, and agree with you there. However the reason cable is starting to get ratings that the networks actually envy is because they're feeding into niche and layalty in a way networks do even less than they did when they were the only thing to watch. This is a short term survival strategy but will soon turn them into a place for local news and reruns and not much else--I'm dead serious. LOL (OK by soon maybe 25+ years unless things change).

I think that ABC doesn't care about long term loyalty and just short term money gains. It depends on how well the whole Disney owned stations do as well as other properties, because other divisions may balance things out in some ways.

Totally, but at the risk of sounding ridiculous, in the long run (which they don't care about) this will kick them in the ass and cable will be bigger than ever. It's a short term bandaid.

Oh I do honestly get, and agree with you there. However the reason cable is starting to get ratings that the networks actually envy is because they're feeding into niche and layalty in a way networks do even less than they did when they were the only thing to watch. This is a short term survival strategy but will soon turn them into a place for local news and reruns and not much else--I'm dead serious. LOL (OK by soon maybe 25+ years unless things change).

Totally, but at the risk of sounding ridiculous, in the long run (which they don't care about) this will kick them in the ass and cable will be bigger than ever. It's a short term bandaid.

In 25 years tv will no longer be watched through the traditional methods we've grown accustomed to. Internet streaming will be the future of delivering programming to the viewer. Schedules will be a thing of the past. Every thing on demand. I have a masters thesis on this if you'd care for a read and several books I can recommend on the topic of televisions future.

Oh I do honestly get, and agree with you there. However the reason cable is starting to get ratings that the networks actually envy is because they're feeding into niche and layalty in a way networks do even less than they did when they were the only thing to watch. This is a short term survival strategy but will soon turn them into a place for local news and reruns and not much else--I'm dead serious. LOL (OK by soon maybe 25+ years unless things change).

Totally, but at the risk of sounding ridiculous, in the long run (which they don't care about) this will kick them in the ass and cable will be bigger than ever. It's a short term bandaid.

Smart Canadian.

So basically no one will be watching anything consistently unless it is sports and perhaps news, that's lovely. How will anything become successful and popular if there is no mass audience of anything? That and how will they get revenue, for me the Netflix new programming will be the big test. A book list would be interesting.

A series that airs once a week in daytime, what do you do the other 4 days? Or when you run out of originals? Do you run reruns? Do you invest in more programming? Daytime is a completely different animal than primetime, always has been, and always will be.

Right, and I am fan-wanking just to lay that out there. I concede that while it's probably not an ABC/NBC/CBS thing, I think back on Tribes and Swans Crossing and can imagine a teen-centric series with adult storylines like Degrassi airing on FOX/CW/MyNetwork... launched in May (beginning of summer vacation) or September (beginning of school year) airing on Tues. and Thurs., fun gameshow on M/W/F. Re-runs at the end of "season" or no re-runs at all but a break with the game show airing M-F. With the switch from analog to digital, basic TV has stepped up its game with THIS, Antenna, RTV, Qubo, etc. in an effort to provide (cheap!) interesting program for the non-cable viewer. I could see them trying to gain some more of that TeenNick audience with something like that. Do any of you have a digital converter box on any of your TVs? I have one at the house, and it's weird how we suddenly don't have just a channel 50 but a channel 50-1, 50-2, 50-3. I dunno, cheap cheap CHEAP original scripted programming may find its way to some of these newer frequencies.