While the OLTL cancellation proved to be a mistake in hindsight, it is definately not the fourth biggest blunder in daytime history. The fact of the matter is that back on April 14, OLTL was not ABC's top rated soap (in contrast to what the author of the article incorrectly wrote); in fact, its ratings were not materially higher than what ATWT had when it was cancelled. Few could have forseen the big ratings boost that OLTL would get post-cancellation; largely because of this, OLTL is getting a second life online. (I agree that ABC should have un-cancelled OLTL upon seeing this ratings boost. However, both the PP deal and the massive egos of the ABC executives prevented this from ever happening.)

By far the most unfair soap cancellations were those of SFT (its CBS cancellation) and Capitol. Even though both soaps were the lowest rated on CBS at the time, they were still pulling in healthy numbers (that were much healthier than the "super-hot" numbers of today's OLTL) that were way above the danger zone of cancellation. However, these cancellations did not even make the list of the top 25 blunders.

And, it is inexcusable that the following two items did not even make the list at all (when they should definately be on the top five blunders): (1) the way P&G (which has the reputation of being the world's greatest marketing/branding organization) totally fu*ked up the management of its soaps (even worse than ABC did), and (2) how JER blew the golden opportunity given to him by instead turning Passions into a massive failure (despite NBC giving his soap a great timeslot and intensive promotion).

Edited September 13, 201114 yr by Max

Well if we're addiing our votes for worst oversights, I'd like to add the rampant misogyny that has been allowed to infect a genre that only existed because of women.Soaps were mainly created by and for women. When they became about men they died.

You know, I really can't be bothered to read thru the whole list again, but I swear the roundelay of exec and writer hiring/firing in daytime not being on that list is positively criminal. I think they mentioned the lack of nurturing new talent somewhere in there in passing (possibly), but that's possibly the worst thing about the last few years in soaps. These shows needed new blood, instead they got Megan McTavish Pt. 281 and Paul Rauch Round 80.

The misogyny also perplexes me. How can you target young female viewers if you're simultaneously insulting them hour upon hour, week after week?

You know, I really can't be bothered to read thru the whole list again, but I swear the roundelay of exec and writer hiring/firing in daytime not being on that list is positively criminal. I think they mentioned the lack of nurturing new talent somewhere in there in passing (possibly), but that's possibly the worst thing about the last few years in soaps. These shows needed new blood, instead they got Megan McTavish Pt. 281 and Paul Rauch Round 80.

Preeeeeeach! I would DEFINITELY put that in the top five. I think it only made 20-25. That's a perfect example of something that decimated the whole genre and probably resulted in some things that got rated higher like the unabortion.

Well if we're addiing our votes for worst oversights, I'd like to add the rampant misogyny that has been allowed to infect a genre that only existed because of women.Soaps were mainly created by and for women. When they became about men they died.

Amen to that.

The Michael Zaslow story should be #1. That story really tells a tale of man's inhumanity to man, and the lack of compassion and human decency has to be the lowest point daytime ever sunk too. And OLTL stepping in to save the day was probably the nicest moment in daytime. All the other stuff about Erica's abortion or whether was this ones daughter or that one..that stuff pales in comparison to the way they treated MZ while he was down. Even the Yankees didn't treat Lou Gehrig that way in 1939.

eta: they might have included the Brenda Benet story in this list. That was a blunder of life and death proportions.

Edited September 13, 201114 yr by quartermainefan

The unabortion was HORRIFIC but c'mon--the number one??

Unfortunately there is a wide audience for misogyny - you can see it everywhere. Perhaps if this misogyny also went along with some type of well-written and structured drama, then the soaps might manage to go through. But putting this in a genre that, as already mentioned, was by and for women, is nonsensical. I think there is this idea among the likes of Guza, Pratt, and Sheffer, that all kinds of manly men will come to daytime as long as the material is offensive and crass enough. These people will never bother with soaps.

The Michael Zaslow story should be #1. That story really tells a tale of man's inhumanity to man, and the lack of compassion and human decency has to be the lowest point daytime ever sunk too. And OLTL stepping in to save the day was probably the nicest moment in daytime. All the other stuff about Erica's abortion or whether was this ones daughter or that one..that stuff pales in comparison to the way they treated MZ while he was down. Even the Yankees didn't treat Lou Gehrig that way in 1939.

Even though I said earlier that I think the broader problems should be higher up, I have to admit I had the most visceral reaction to the item about Zaslow. That's still so patently offensive on a basic human level.

That's the thing that bothers me the most. This genre was created by and for women and it's been descimated by (at least) two decades worth of damage that should have been stopped by the so called people in charge who had the gall to say that they LOVED working and creating in this field. As much as I despise "Grey's Anatomy", I just don't think that its creator, Shonda Rhimes would be an advocate of a rapist being consider a heartthrob/leading man/sympathetic character on her show. There's a lot of network primetime dramas that I stopped watching (mainly for the writing), but I never stopped watching them, because I felt like I was watching misogny being embraced by those show's creators. Even Mad Men isn't that bad and that show is based in the 60s.

Unfortunately there is a wide audience for misogyny - you can see it everywhere. Perhaps if this misogyny also went along with some type of well-written and structured drama, then the soaps might manage to go through. But putting this in a genre that, as already mentioned, was by and for women, is nonsensical.

I think there is this idea among the likes of Guza, Pratt, and Sheffer, that all kinds of manly men will come to daytime as long as the material is offensive and crass enough. These people will never bother with soaps.

You know, I really can't be bothered to read thru the whole list again, but I swear the roundelay of exec and writer hiring/firing in daytime not being on that list is positively criminal. I think they mentioned the lack of nurturing new talent somewhere in there in passing (possibly), but that's possibly the worst thing about the last few years in soaps. These shows needed new blood, instead they got Megan McTavish Pt. 281 and Paul Rauch Round 80.

The misogyny also perplexes me. How can you target young female viewers if you're simultaneously insulting them hour upon hour, week after week?

ITA. It's the firing and rehiring of the same dam# writers and producers that really killed daytime. That and the misogyny. English 101: know your audience.

- Saying that Victor Lord molested Viki

AMEN.

That's the thing that bothers me the most. This genre was created by and for women and it's been descimated by (at least) two decades worth of damage that should have been stopped by the so called people in charge who had the gall to say that they LOVED working and creating in this field. As much as I despise "Grey's Anatomy", I just don't think that its creator, Shonda Rhimes would be an advocate of a rapist being consider a heartthrob/leading man/sympathetic character on her show. There's a lot of network primetime dramas that I stopped watching (mainly for the writing), but I never stopped watching them, because I felt like I was watching misogny being embraced by those show's creators. Even Mad Men isn't that bad and that show is based in the 60s.

I know Carl says there is an audience for this and I guess there are movies that still play on this. Lifetime itself has been the classic station for the victim of the week movies but even there the men are not glorified and at the end of the day the woman does tend to always come out on top and the man portrayed as WE all see him as dead and gone normally. I don't get the degradation of women in this genre at all and I don't agree that a "strong woman" means bitch which is what we tend to see also. Sheffers columns and his interviews in that other thread were truly enlightening and it seems to exemplify how the writers in this genre see men and women. And I can't imagine any primetime audience ever being accepting of characters like Todd Manning, Adam Newman, EJ Dimera as dreamy romantic leads and accepting that "real men" abuse and demean women and that a man can only be sexy and edgy if they victimize women. Of course some would point to the OLTL ratings surge saying this is exactly what people want to see except look at where those ratings surges are. Certainly not in the 18-34 or even significantly in the 18-49 female audience.

Edited September 13, 201114 yr by JaneAusten

And I can't imagine any primetime audience ever being accepting of characters like Todd Manning, Adam Newman, EJ Dimera as dreamy romantic leads and accepting that "real men" abuse and demean women and that a man can only be sexy and edgy if they victimize women.

I can. Spike, Damon Salvatore, Logan Echolls, Chuck Bass, Eric Northman, Don Draper, Sylar (he's not supposed to be a romantic hero but I've seen woman swoon over him).

I can. Spike, Damon Salvatore, Logan Echolls, Chuck Bass, Eric Northman, Don Draper, Sylar (he's not supposed to be a romantic hero but I've seen woman swoon over him).

And any show on the FX network. Their "heroes" turn lesbians straight, rape women who secretly want it...it's a misogynist paradise.