Wendy comments on the soap cancellations

Actually I did. When people were acting like they were going to commit suicide I told them to get a grip and my thread was promptly pulled. I demanded an explanation and was told SOC is a business and my negativity wasn't helping. Hey, they love that their posters are acting two fries short of a happy meal because it encourages traffic. Go figure.

That's why I gave up on that bloody place. I occasionally post. But, it's so freaking nazi-ish. Also, I mentioned 'cancelation' on the live radio show about 3 months ago and Kroll got all pissed at me for saying the 'c' word. Hey buddy, I should have said another one instead!

Edited April 20, 201114 yr by weareclouds

Wendy comments on the soap cancellations

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=FFISe6F8FmU

If FV were to arrange for Erika Slezak to appear on a future WW show (not likely he would let someone who's not "young and hot" rep OLTL), I would hope a staffer tells Wendy how to pronounce Erika's last name correctly before she arrives at the studio. Good grief.

A little British perspective on the cancellations:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13140622

And apparently Mal Young, who produced some British Soap Operas is developing one for the U.S. Primetime.

Yeah, I don't know anyone who is going to watch The Revolution because RH returned to OLTL. I won't. I don't think I'd watch The Revolution even if RH made an appearance on it.

My point wasn't people will watch Revolution because RH returned to OLTL, I was responding to someone who is afraid Frons will "stick it" to AMC and OLTL in the final months. My point was ABC won't be spiteful to hurt these shows as its in their interest for each to get good ratings till the end because in their minds the more people watching at 1pm and 2pm for the cancelled soaps, once they go off, the potential is there for some of them to watch the new stuff. I mentioned ABC hiring LB to write AMC and RH for OLTL as example of the network doing something for these cancelled shows and those decisions were made when ABC knew both shows were being cancelled. The worst ABC could go already happened when they cancelled AMC and OLTL, the budgets won't be slashed or anything else "sticking it to them" Frons and ABC are focused on the new shows, they will likely let the creative teams at each show do what they want for the final months.

In fact, as somebody who prefers the P&G soaps over the ABC ones, I find it downright insulting that Hoover felt that the P&G soaps didn't deserve to be saved, and that fans of those soaps didn't seem to matter to them. Again, as I previously indicated, Hoover didn't pull its ads back then simply because there was minimal outrage, and consequently little marketing advantage for Hoover to get involved.

Did Hoover advertise on the P&G soaps? Since P&G was the owner did they prevent competitors from advertising on their shows? I don't know if P&G owns any vacumm cleaners companies although regardless of that, I think with P&G the possibility is there they kept a lot of the ad time for their own products and may have only allowed certain others to buy time, so if Hoover was never allowed to buy ads on the P&G soaps or just never did, then its understanding why they didn't say anything with those shows went off.

Max, on 19 April 2011 - 07:11 PM, said:

In fact, as somebody who prefers the P&G soaps over the ABC ones, I find it downright insulting that Hoover felt that the P&G soaps didn't deserve to be saved, and that fans of those soaps didn't seem to matter to them. Again, as I previously indicated, Hoover didn't pull its ads back then simply because there was minimal outrage, and consequently little marketing advantage for Hoover to get involved.

Did Hoover advertise on the P&G soaps? Since P&G was the owner did they prevent competitors from advertising on their shows? I don't know if P&G owns any vacumm cleaners companies although regardless of that, I think with P&G the possibility is there they kept a lot of the ad time for their own products and may have only allowed certain others to buy time, so if Hoover was never allowed to buy ads on the P&G soaps or just never did, then its understanding why they didn't say anything with those shows went off.

Perhaps the P&G fans didnt reach out to Hoover, and if they did perhaps not enough of them.

But it did start much sooner than the 90's. The decline has been steady. The mid-late 80's got a boot, mostly due to the super couple, but it was short lived and made the drop seem sudden and big, when really it just ent back to the steady decline. The issue with it becoming more rapid in the 90's can honestly be seen in connection with the amount of home that got cable. While cable had been around for a long time before the mid 90's, the cable subscriptions went up in the 90's. Then in the 2000's you add in online watching and what not and the damage was done and there is no rebound. I know you post about how you dont think a mass audience wants to watch one of few things in different formats spread over 200 channels, but i think they do.

All ratings declines on TV have been steady, but the decline for daytime over the last ten years seemed much more pronounced than anything in primetime. This is at a time when, with a few exceptions, cable networks were not having any big increase compared to where they were ten years ago (people just move around from one network to another - HBO loses some or Showtime gains some, FX gets a boost while Lifetime begins fading into oblivion, etc.) If anything there are now many less choices on cable than there were ten years ago - almost everything is the same, and many shows called hits would never be that on a major network (like Mad Men, or most of Syfy's crap). The only shows that seem to get a mass audience on cable at the moment are shows about drunken idiots punching each other out and having babies.

I also don't think that many people watch online that it would affect soap operas. I think that would be more likely to affect shows like sci-fi programs.

In primetime, many shows lose steam, but something can always manage to capture the public interest. That's because the networks still care about fixing primetime. They stopped caring about fixing daytime 10 years ago or more. And that's when the ratings really started to hit the floor. 10 years ago, 5 years ago, etc.

Edited April 20, 201114 yr by CarlD2

Getting back to AMS's earlier post, do you all think Americans have the discipline to follow a serial that airs two or three times a week? Is it once or five times, and that's it? "Break" days too much to wrap our brains around?

Well Fridays have become low rating days, and if it was a daily night soap, then Fridays are out cause its a big night not to be home.

I could see 2 nighttime soaps or even a daytime soap sharing a timeslot. Mon and Wen Soap A airs and Tue and Thur Soap B airs. There are lots of potential although these idiots don't care enough to be innovative.

I'm going out on a limb here and saying I do not believe OLTL was loosing money for ABC. Firstly, Days--not owned by NBC--was recently renewed with close to similiar numbers. Also, TeleNext may have been loosing money but CBS never lost a cent on ATWT or GL. Why would ABC allow a money loosing show to go on a hiring spree and contract Peck, Zimmer, Howarth and Conn while maintaining an already huge cast? Why would ABC go through the cost of giving OLTL a larger studio while loosing money? Wow...GH must ave been loosing a ton of cash before the 50% budget cut. If this were the case, OLTL would have been off air one year ago as opposed to January 2012. I don't really believe that AMC was doing any worse than break even or we would have seen massive cast/set cuts on par with Days.

ABC will make a lot more cash off a talk show and I get that the network is not a soap charity; however, I really wish they would just be honest as to the true situation. For the network to say they were loosing money is just a lame lie.

You got it right! The soaps are making money, they just want more money from cheaper programming.

New Agnes Nixon interview:

http://www.philly.com/philly/insights/in_the_know/120261799.html

Wow, Jonathan, that's a great interview! Thanks for posting.

Q: Any feelings on being replaced by a show named The Chew?

A (amid gales of laughter): It makes me laugh because they could have had a more euphemistic title. They could have called it Pasta. Someone said it's heavily endowed with that Italian chef. Maybe they could call it All My Chews.

I love it.

Q: What about Erica Kane?

A: I haven't decided. We hope and we will try to have Erica Kane exit, if that's the word to use, happily. One of her problems is her abandonment complex. That's been the thread for 40 years, that she will never have enough "I love you. I love you, I love you." Let's just see if in the next few months Erica comes to realize that she's had it all along. Let's see if Erica gets to the point where she's content with herself.

Basically the conclusion that we all came to last week in regards to Erica. It's so fulfilling when you know a character well enough that you and the woman who created her and wrote her for years agree 100% on how the character's story should end.

I don't get this idea of developing or moving soaps to primetime as if primetime today doesn't have soaps. Isn't that exactly what shows

like Desperate Housewives, Brothers and Sisters, and even The Good Wife are or even a show like Damages? Desperate Housewives has been a

successful show on primetime for years. ANd there were years where primetime soaps thrived with Dallas, Dynasty, Falcon Crest, Knots Landing,etc...

So there is definitely an audience for them but if you look at Primetime all of those shows ultimately lost viewer interest and ended. Same

has happened with DH but something new always comes along to capitivate the audience. And I don't think it will be a continuation of Dallas

but something fresh and new like DH was at the time. I'm just a firm believer that the audience doesn't have the time to watch a show 5 days

a week during primetime much less daytime and if they do, they will lose interest even more quickly than they do in the average 1 day a week

primetime show.

AS for soaps making money, wasn't the original intent of soaps to make a healthy profit to provide cash influx to primetime to help develop

and build those shows. That's likely what the networks are looking for now. Maybe these new cheaper shows can't generate as much of an audience

as the soaps do but they can likely generate a healthier profit. I just remember shows like Cheers in its early years at the ratings basement. Had it

not been for daytime, that show may not ever have been given the chance to build an audience and become as successful as it did.

I don't get this idea of developing or moving soaps to primetime as if primetime today doesn't have soaps.

The ideas talked about are ways to come up with vialble solutions to the concept there isn't a big audience at home during the day to watch daily dramas, so thats why its suggested daily or less than 5 days a week soaps move to a different timeslot, whether primetime, fringe 5-8pm EST or 11pm. Primetime soaps are not the same as the daytime daily dramas that air 52 weeks a year, the daytime soap is what we want to preserve, too bad network execs aren't as innovative as some posters on this board who offer viable solutions and options.

I don't get this idea of developing or moving soaps to primetime as if primetime today doesn't have soaps. Isn't that exactly what shows

like Desperate Housewives, Brothers and Sisters, and even The Good Wife are or even a show like Damages? Desperate Housewives has been a

successful show on primetime for years. ANd there were years where primetime soaps thrived with Dallas, Dynasty, Falcon Crest, Knots Landing,etc...

So there is definitely an audience for them but if you look at Primetime all of those shows ultimately lost viewer interest and ended. Same

has happened with DH but something new always comes along to capitivate the audience. And I don't think it will be a continuation of Dallas

but something fresh and new like DH was at the time. I'm just a firm believer that the audience doesn't have the time to watch a show 5 days

a week during primetime much less daytime and if they do, they will lose interest even more quickly than they do in the average 1 day a week

primetime show.

AS for soaps making money, wasn't the original intent of soaps to make a healthy profit to provide cash influx to primetime to help develop

and build those shows. That's likely what the networks are looking for now. Maybe these new cheaper shows can't generate as much of an audience

as the soaps do but they can likely generate a healthier profit. I just remember shows like Cheers in its early years at the ratings basement. Had it

not been for daytime, that show may not ever have been given the chance to build an audience and become as successful as it did.

THIS. I completely agree with all of it.