Older, minority, lower income... Isn't that supposedly who really watches soaps?

And gay men. Don't forget the gay men.

And why don't they want us? Because of the loud-mouthed few who make the rest look like complete lunatics. TPTB cannot hold a discourse with them, let alone please them, so now they're at the point where they'd be done with the whole lot of us.

Of course, what they've forgotten is that no viewer is more loyal than a soap viewer. We're used to shows rising and falling in quality from time to time. We're used to it, and we ride it out unless or until it becomes absolutely unbearable -- and for many, that rock bottom is pretty damn far down. Non-soap fans? Not so much.

I think it's the old idea of soap fans, that has been around since the days of radio soaps. They see soap fans as stupid and lazy and worthless. They believe all they have to do is throw out buzzwords and the cool, hip, beautiful, filthy rich demographic that has been waiting in the wings, breathlessly, will finally come along. They tried to change the soaps to fit this demo, and it never happened, so now they're trying knockoffs of a dozen other shows, waiting for this demo.

If so many of those in daytime now did not hate and resent soaps, so much might be different today.

And why don't they want us? Because of the loud-mouthed few who make the rest look like complete lunatics.

That is not it at all. Demographically, soap viewers are not the most desired group.

I think those fans will be more likely to find somewhere else to go - if Nate Berkus didn't do well outside of Oprah then I'm not sure Carla and Clinton, as likeable as they are, would be any draw.

Same here. As I've said before, one of the reasons why the networks are overhauling their daytime lineups is to chase after Oprah's legions of fans, who they assume will be left wandering once her show is done. That's why they're hiring who they also assume are "big guns" for these new shows: Clinton Kelly, Tim Gunn, Mario Batali, Michael Symon and so forth. These aren't just celebrities from the worlds of food and fashion; these are people whose fans most likely overlap with Oprah's. As Nate Berkus has proven, however, there's really only one Oprah (thank God) and just b/c he or she might be as appealing as she is on a visceral level, that doesn't necessarily mean people will flock to them like they have to her.

Meanwhile, how funny is it that Ricki Lake, of all people, is jumping back into the fray w/ a new show now that 1) Oprah's leaving, 2) her post-1st show career has gone nowhere, and 3) there are thousands, if not millions, of (former) soap fans out there who still remember the, erm, "glory days" of her show? Welcome back, Ricki, we've missed you. :-D

That is not it at all. Demographically, soap viewers are not the most desired group.

That, too. :-)

We often hear that the quality of the soap was meaningless

I always subscribe to this theory and I think the proof is in the ratings. Pick your year and pick your highest quality soap, and their ratings trajectory mirrors the soap you would choose as worst.

Even at their most popular, soaps were pretty moronic with everyone in small towns sleeping with everyone else, and horrible hokey dialogue along the lines of "I took vows before God!" and shoddy sets, camera work, directing, acting, lighting and wardrobe to make it all look extra amateurish. And then after a year of tolerating every sin (except abortion) everyone sits down to christmas dinner together. I loved AMC but even at its height it starred a 5'1 supermodel with a large nose who we were told was the most beautiful woman on earth when clearly it was ridiculous.

And yet, there are exceptions to this youth rule. Ask yourself why NBC fucked over Conan O'Brien in favor of Jay Leno last year. There's a very intelligent breakdown of this in Bill Carter's recent book The War For Late Night. O'Brien got the bulk of the youth demographic, 18-49, and was considered NBC's rising star; coming out of the gate at The Tonight Show, however, he had the same rocky start Leno did and they feared Letterman might overtake him in the slot permanently. By contrast, Leno had the stronger Tonight Show ratings (after seventeen years on the job) but his audience was old, old, old. NBC also feared O'Brien was too urban and 'edgy' to ever capture the wider audience Leno had with his safer and frankly schticky and often pedestrian comedy.

Faced with the cultural divide, NBC chose to embrace the much older baby boomer-plus audience - even as it's dying out - and bring back Leno, and banish Conan to the land of wind and ghosts. They basically chose to become CBS circa the '90s in terms of late night, because they favored soothing stability over the risk.

Whether you agree with that choice or consider it viable in the long-term (as Leno's audience croaks) or not is another story, and does this mean I think these two shitty shows=Conan while soaps=Leno? Hell [!@#$%^&*] no. But it is an interesting inversion of the POV these same networks apply to their soaps and daytime programming.

Edited May 16, 201114 yr by Vee

I think there is a middle ground, but it is silent for the most part. Who wants to be yelled at by both sides. Sometimes I keep my mouth shut for that reason. I don't think any of the cancelled soaps will be brought back, but it doesn't mean they are completely crappy either.

Some people have done things that have gone too far, but I expected that.

And it is true, there has been an anti-soap opera movement since forever.

Vee ICAM about the Leno, Conan situation and how that was against conventional wisdom.

Edited May 16, 201114 yr by ~bl~

Even at their most popular, soaps were pretty moronic with everyone in small towns sleeping with everyone else, and horrible hokey dialogue along the lines of "I took vows before God!" and shoddy sets, camera work, directing, acting, lighting and wardrobe to make it all look extra amateurish. And then after a year of tolerating every sin (except abortion) everyone sits down to christmas dinner together.

First of all, not every soap was that moronic. There were plenty of HW's and EP's who fought constantly to bring this genre above such levels.

Secondly, as moronic as many past stories might look today, or even back then, there was also a time when they took the time to explore the psychological underpinnings. Much of what soap characters often did BITD might've seemed ludicrous even to the diehards, but we understood why they did it. Today's soaps suffer from a lack of inner motivations.

Edited May 16, 201114 yr by Khan

There's also some middle areas that I wouldn't do but I didn't see as being all that horrible, like the people who took out the ad in the Hollywood Reporter. They were called crazy, people said this was all just a con to steal money, etc.

Speaking only for myself, the ad in HR was the only tactic I've seen that I supported. I thought it was a great idea because it was the only idea that required enough planning and financial investment to show that the soap audience has some connection with the real world and the money to back it up. I seriously considered donating. But the rest of this, the harassment of moving targets, the BS on FB and Twitter and of course the hypocrisy, makes me want nothing to do with this.

ETA: Also a question, let's say that by some miracle these shows get saved, then what? More of the same? Is that what I'm supposed to fly to New York and stand out in the street for? Dopplegangers and rape and everybody being white, straight, skinny and rich? I love AMC. It's my show. But am I supposed to keep fighting for a show that force feeds me Rebecca Budig and Cameron Mathison while Shannon Kane and Cornelius Smith are dayplayers? Because...no.

Edited May 17, 201114 yr by marceline

Ask yourself why NBC fucked over Conan O'Brien in favor of Jay Leno last year. There's a very intelligent breakdown of this in Bill Carter's recent book The War For Late Night. O'Brien got the bulk of the youth demographic, 18-49, and was considered NBC's rising star; coming out of the gate at The Tonight Show, however, he had the same rocky start Leno did and they feared Letterman might overtake him in the slot permanently. By contrast, Leno had the stronger Tonight Show ratings (after seventeen years on the job) but his audience was old, old, old. NBC also feared O'Brien was too urban and 'edgy' to ever capture the wider audience Leno had with his safer and frankly schticky and often pedestrian comedy.

Faced with the cultural divide, NBC chose to embrace the much older baby boomer-plus audience - even as it's dying out - and bring back Leno, and banish Conan to the land of wind and ghosts. They basically chose to become CBS circa the '90s in terms of late night, because they favored soothing stability over the risk.

I've always believed NBC would have stuck w/ Conan had they not been so impatient where Letterman was concerned. After all, as you've pointed out, Leno didn't start out on top. He needed years to build his audience. Years which, I'm afraid, the network never wanted to afford to Coco.

Speaking only for myself, the ad in HR was the only tactic I've seen that I supported. I thought it was a great idea because it was the only idea that required enough planning and financial investment to show that the soap audience has some connection with the real world and the money to back it up. I seriously considered donating. But the rest of this, the harassment of moving targets, the BS on FB and Twitter and of course the hypocrisy, makes me want nothing to do with this.

Same here. If the primary purpose is just to thank AMC and OLTL for their years of entertaining their masses, I'm down. Otherwise, forget it. It's pointless; it raises people's expectations and hopes needlessly; and depending on the tactics or the ones responsible for implementing them, it just leaves a foul taste in my mouth and an even worse stench in the room.

I think that had a lot to do with how Leno played the game back in the day and how he presented himself as a comedian - he went to great pains to transform himself into the "everyday guy" with middle American values and comedy, because he was intent on reaching the broadest audience as possible and say what you will about him (I don't think much of him) but he did succeed.

The truth is subjective, as Carter's great book makes clear, but I think a lot of it had to do with much of NBC upper management being either old and white and more comfortable with a certain presentation of that show - guys like Dick Ebersol, who was once a huge Conan booster and then became rabidly anti-Coco in public in the last year or two - or addicted to the short-term fix and gamesmanship, as Jeff Zucker was, I think. Even Leno has made noises about retiring on his own terms in two or three years from now - what do they do then? They weren't looking at the future, they were looking at now and they got caught up in the moment.

The truth, though, is I don't think they ever felt secure enough with Conan as Conan in that spot, they were too scared to take that risk, and he should've jumped networks years before when he'd had the chance. Contrast that to daytime where everyone wants to jump off a cliff just to say they don't do soap operas.

Edited May 17, 201114 yr by Vee

Speaking only for myself, the ad in HR was the only tactic I've seen that I supported. I thought it was a great idea because it was the only idea that required enough planning and financial investment to show that the soap audience has some connection with the real world and the money to back it up. I seriously considered donating. But the rest of this, the harassment of moving targets, the BS on FB and Twitter and of course the hypocrisy, makes me want nothing to do with this.

Oh I definitely agree with you - there's a lot of desperate and unhinged stuff I just ignore, and I'm sure if I read Branco (I haven't in a long time) or some other stuff I would be even more annoyed. It's just moments like some of the reaction to the HR ad that made me feel like there's this need to see anything fans do besides acceptance as crazy.

I don't think we should all just accept it, but nor do I think the methods being employed really work.

What will work, I think, is watching the networks fail in the daytime programming over the next several years. Eventually some form of the soap opera will return in some format or medium, perhaps utilizing some of these existing brands with a "revamped" presentation - like 90210 vs. Beverly Hills 90210 - and people need to be ready for it with a streamlined production model.

Even Leno has made noises about retiring on his own terms in two or three years from now - what do they do then?

One thing's for sure: it won't be Jimmy Fallon who replaces him. He'll never be ready for "The Tonight Show."