Whatever you think of Bree or Jessica and her alters, you have to admit that this tweet is kind of funny...

Bree Williamson

Spinoff idea! "Me and my alters". Jess, Tess, Bess and Wes in a one bedroom! Wes pretends he's gay to not upset Mr Furley. 5 Jul

http://twitter.com/?q=bree+williamson#!/breewilliamson/status/88406149115805697

I hope Michael Easton thinks he is too good for the online version of OLTL.

I'm sure he will. The loss is immeasurable, natch.

While soaps are all those things and more, you would have had no problem finding people who thought the very same thing in 1951, 61, 71 and the most viewed year ever 1981. If the platform had nothing to do with it and if network TV audience erosion was not part of the problem, then the best soap would not have an identical ratings trajectory as the worst. Pick your choice for best soap, any soap of your choice from the year of your choosing, and its ratings followed the exact same path as the one you would deem the worst.

My comments were constructed as a response to JaneA's post/argument and not intended to be applied broadly. Yes, audience erosion is a problem, and the platform is important in the general sense that the product has to conform to the rules and conventions of the platform. However, Jane raised an important point. If the soaps are not working on TV, why should we think they will work any better on the internet if the form stays exactly the same? The point is that soaps are not in trouble because they are on TV, they are in trouble because, as Carl corrected, the people who run television have made extremely bad decisions. If the executives at PP make the same bad decisions, the programs will continue to fail. It all comes down to producers giving an audience what it wants. Soaps have largely been failing to do that for over a decade now, and it should come as no surprise that the trajectory of precipitous decline in soaps has coincided with the dumbing down of daytime. There is a trajectory alright. Put a load of crap on the air, market it toward a fraction of your total audience -an audience whom you mistakenly assume are too stupid to notice- and watch the numbers the nose-dive. It is not rocket science. Even better, attempt to blame the decline on too many channels (if you gave the audience what they wanted, they would not surf the other 200 channels for something better) OR claim it is because no one is home to watch, when we all know that unemployment is higher than it has been in decades.

Daytime is how the US established their soaps. In the UK Eastenders airs at night. The ratings tell the tale about the impact of when a show airs.

I am not sure what your point is with this statement, but EastEnders and US soaps are apples and oranges. I have watched EE since it premiered, and although it is a shadow of its former self, US soaps are not even in the same league. When US soaps are transmitted in the UK, continuity announcers have a field day pointing out how inane the stories and characters are. Any UK soap at its worst can be taken more seriously than the weekly faked deaths, evil twins/impostors, plane crashes on deserted islands with demented villains running amok. I mean, really.

One final thought, if the soaps are working for you now, super. I am not attempting to insult anyone. I am also not saying that there is not a place for pure entertainment that has no other value. The problem is when everything on the air is designed that way. And, while the soaps are working for a significant amount of people, there obviously are not enough of them to keep the genre going. Someone has to offer something else to those of us who have been alienated. Soaps cannot survive unless they entice more people into watching, which means providing an alternative.

Edited July 8, 201114 yr by saynotoursoap

I love Marlee Matlin. She should make a cameo.

MarleeMatlin Marlee Matlin

All My Children fans have tweeted asking me to use my clout to help insure it's captioned when it moves to web. Happy to make noise for you!

Just found out this news, and all I can say is I'm overjoyed and shocked! I hope they cut the soaps down from the hour format though, despite what it says in the press release. I don't think episodes actually need to be that long. 30 minutes, 4 episodes a week, would be perfect.

Also I'm a little sad that P&G could probably have done something like this kind of deal with someone too but let their soaps die.

But wow! Wow!

Edited July 8, 201114 yr by jfung79

Too Crazy to Be True, Too True to be Crazy: 'AMC' and 'OLTL' Live On Beyond ABC

On Thursday, June 23, we reported that ABC had indeed turned down offers they received to sell the soaps. Knowing what we know now, and putting the puzzle pieces together, it makes sense that a plan was in the works all a long to save the soaps, while also allowing ABC to retain ownership rights to both soap operas and receive millions of dollars in royalties each year from Prospect Park. Hence, ABC comes out a winner either way in this case. They no longer produce the shows, yet still stand to make money off of them as they move into the future. As opposed to selling them outright and watching another network or medium make money off of them. ABC can't have asked for a better situation.

Errol, I apologize for my rudeness, but if this is such a great deal for ABC, then why didn't P&G think of making a similar deal for its soaps? Was the only difference between the two situations (ABC vs. P&G) the level of outrage that the cancellations caused?

By the way, thank you for all of your hard work and great reporting on this story.

Edited July 8, 201114 yr by Max

Too Crazy to Be True, Too True to be Crazy: 'AMC' and 'OLTL' Live On Beyond ABC

I am not sure I read your article correctly. Are you saying the government is giving out grants to production companies to invest in online content and that's where the financing is coming from or is this a euphemism of some sort?

In return for saving our beloved soaps, the government gives a grant for what could be the next big medium, progression of sorts... Radio > TV > Internet Broadcasting.

Chrishell Stause loves this decision so much that she treated her little sister to a Dodgers game tonight and missed Big Brother tonight but lookin' good as always.

I am not sure I read your article correctly. Are you saying the government is giving out grants to production companies to invest in online content and that's where the financing is coming from or is this a euphemism of some sort?

And it also sounds like Errol was talking to the soaps version of deep throat

I am not sure I read your article correctly. Are you saying the government is giving out grants to production companies to invest in online content and that's where the financing is coming from or is this a euphemism of some sort?

It is my understanding that part of the money that Prospect Park needed to fund this venture came from the government, so yes I am saying that the government has handed out grants to production companies looking to invest in new media.

Errol, I apologize for my rudeness, but if this is such a great deal for ABC, then why didn't P&G think of making a similar deal for its soaps? Was the only difference between the two situations (ABC vs. P&G) the level of outrage that the cancellations caused?

By the way, thank you for all of your hard work and great reporting on this story.

Not rude at all. The fact is that P&G wanted out. The timing wasn't right for this kind of deal to take place in 2009 or even in 2010. In 2011 and beyond, it is now necessary. We are moving more and more into the digital age and part of that is because our government is regulating when we are required to transition from different aspects of what we considered to be our daily average lives into a new world. People who don't watch TV via a cable box were forced to buy digital transmitters to even receive reception! Now they are allowing movie studios to change the window from "in theaters" to "in stores" or more precisely "on demand." It's the way of the future and that future is now.

I fully expect to see General Hospital transition to this new company next year when Katie comes on.

It is my understanding that part of the money that Prospect Park needed to fund this venture came from the government, so yes I am saying that the government has handed out grants to production companies looking to invest in new media.

God Bless Obama in that case! I bet Michelle is a closet Erica fan! This is probably the first decent thing the government has done in 20 years. And to think, some of these Washington cretins want to defund the arts! Where would The Banner be then?!?

From Jerry VerDorn's Facebook

"Hello all. Good news,eh? Llanview Lives. Stay tuned. Told you. Love,jvd"

I think poor Passions fans were used by DirecTV. That show didn't have a true shot. It was also the first show on DirecTV's 101 channel. Just judging by that, I think it's possible this could work in someway, but even Passions scaled back considerably. Luckily many actors declined to move, so it helps trim the cast. They also eliminated lots of extras and even had to recast a few roles when switching. I think it mostly worked and the show was still decent. I'm interested in this, especially with AMC, but both soaps will have to cut the casts and change drastically for this to make sense.