I kind of wonder, with the advent of DVR, who is influenced by advertising at all now, if they're watching TV. I guess if you watch stuff through Youtube, Hulu, etc. you are forced to watch ads, if you don't have adblock.

Edited November 28, 201114 yr by CarlD2

Because every cable channel rejected AMC and OLTL.

If an actor gets the minimum AFTRA wage, around $150,000 a year, then 6 minimum paid actors already cost about $1 million a year. There is no way that a web based soap with AFTRA restrictions can afford that. Also, an ensemble soap would require more than 6 actors.

Consider popular amateur Youtube channels which draw millions of views for each video, more than any web based soap would receive. Youtube pays the channel a few thousand of dollars of month. The Youtube channel costs far less then the hundreds of thousands a month that a web based soap would cost with AFTRA restrictions.

Oh, I get that. But if PP was planning to get it on a cable channel (somehow, someway), how could they justify Internet-only wages?

Now The FB Group, "Save AMC & OLTL" Tasking 2 call PP and ABC & Force Them Into Selling OLTL & AMC To NBC. NBC May Not

Want Them....

LMAO.

Edited November 28, 201114 yr by Eric83

I said from the start PP showed no interest in creatively revamping these shows for the long haul. I felt they wanted the built-in soap audience to lure them to their other projects in development.

Well, when you think about it, what better than two 5x/week programs with multiple commercial breaks if we're talking ad-supported online viewing. If you can produce multiple serials inexpensively, that makes sense if you're trying to launch an online streaming network rather than with one episode per week series.

Oh, I get that. But if PP was planning to get it on a cable channel (somehow, someway), how could they justify Internet-only wages?

That's the thing, they either had no real plans/prospects (<< I know) for television or they were hoping to cross that bridge when they got to it. It would have been easier to do it the other way around, cable first then online "reruns", where they really could have covered their butts and gotten away with paying the talent next to nothing for those online re-airings.

The hatred towards Prospect Park is well placed. They started this venture without the capital necessary to get the deal done! Nobody in LA does that! It's insanity.

In my experience in this thread, the hatred towards PP stems largely from ignorance... ignorance from folks who have never ever worked for or been involved with a startup venture. This type of failure is far more the norm than the exception.

As for the blame game, I refuse to let Disney off the hook. They are the real culprits for ABC soaps fan to hate.

JMO.

Edited November 28, 201114 yr by TeamEric

I said from the start PP showed no interest in creatively revamping these shows for the long haul. I felt they wanted the built-in soap audience to lure them to their other projects in development.

And what is the status of those other shows? Have they given up on the whole TOLN project or just the soaps? Do they have any other TV projects in development a la Wilfred or Royal Pains? If they do, it would be nice to remember those actors who signed on and give them some consideration.

Rhetorical questions BTW. I'm not specifically asking you.

As for the blame game, I refuse to let Disney off the hook. They are the real culprits here to hate.

Again, I don't see where it's mutually exclusive. I guess it depends whether one thinks PP were just nice, well-meaning guys who got in over their heads or incompetent liars whose hubris and delusions of grandeur did a lot of damage.

Edited November 28, 201114 yr by marceline

Well, when you think about it, what better than two 5x/week programs with multiple commercial breaks if we're talking ad-supported online viewing. If you can produce multiple serials inexpensively, that makes sense if you're trying to launch an online streaming network rather than with one episode per week series.

I understand that. But PP bought the same sets, wardrobes and hired the same creative team for OLTL... so they made no investment in revamping the show into a more modern production. That was my problem from the start... the lack of investment in producing a better quality show.

And what is the status of those other shows? Have they given up on the whole TOLN project or just the soaps? Do they have any other TV projects in development a la Wilfred or Royal Pains? If they do, it would be nice to remember those actors who signed on and give them some consideration.

Rhetorical questions BTW. I'm not specifically asking you.

As of 9-16-11 PP has several TV projects in development.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/09/prospect-park-sets-up-slew-of-tv-projects/

I don't know the status of TOLN. From some experience with gov't grants, my guess is TOLN required private matching funds and PP failed to secure those.

And what is the status of those other shows? Have they given up on the whole TOLN project or just the soaps? Do they have any other TV projects in development a la Wilfred or Royal Pains? If they do, it would be nice to remember those actors who signed on and give them some consideration.

Rhetorical questions BTW. I'm not specifically asking you.

I was wondering the same when I posted earlier, but ditched the question on second thought because the issue of union minimums is probably still a huge point of contention. They could populate these shows with a bunch of non-union actors/union newbies and a couple bigger names who'd draw the "real" salaries for instance.

I understand that. But PP bought the same sets, wardrobes and hired the same creative team for OLTL... so they made no investment in revamping the show into a more modern production. That was my problem from the start... the lack of investment in producing a better quality show.

Oh I totally agree with you, just adding to the convo that there was good thinking and bad thinking that ultimately cancelled everything out. This was an awesome opportunity to do a Peapack-like venture right.

People pooh-pooh the spinoff idea, but the more I think about it, the more launching new soaps with a handful of AMC/OLTL names (and salaries) surrounded by newer, thirstier, less expensive talent may not have been such a bad idea.

Frankly, all these crazy conspiracy theories about PP pulling some con job really make me wince.

Just to clarify, when I say that this was a con, I don't mean it was a conspiracy. That's beyond asinine.

I mean that it was people telling folks what they wanted to hear even when the evidence didn't back it up. It's like an email con saying that you won some big jackpot but first you have to pay a small fee to claim so please send your social security number.

Regarding the suggestion that OLTL would switch networks and go to NBC, there is no way this would have worked out. That's because ratings virtually always drop when a television show changes networks. (Witness what happened when EON & SFT left CBS.)

NBC really wanted to get its hands on SFT right after CBS cancelled it (since SFT had higher ratings than any NBC soap at the time). However, SFT almost immediately lost half its audience when it switched networks. While I don't believe that OLTL's loss would have been that drastic, I do believe that it would be getting household ratings around 1.2 or 1.3 if it switched to NBC.

Besides, if these reports are true (that NBC was even interested in OLTL), how exactly would NBC have accomodated OLTL? There's no way that the network would shave off an hour of The Today Show, and NBC cannot cancel DOOL until 2013 at the earliest. Furthermore, NBC would have had to fight like hell to get back an extra hour of daytime programming from its affiliates.

I don't believe the NBC rumors for a second. Why would NBC -- with its myriad of problems in all timeslots -- pick up another network's lowly-rated, expensive castoff? It makes absolutely zero financial sense. There is no upside for them. I know we all like to pick apart the rankings of the remaining soaps but in reality, there is very little to distinguish them from one another. Even if OLTL were to continue to draw the same one- or two-tenths of one ratings point higher than DAYS on NBC, that isn't going to cause such an influx of advertising dollars that daytime's fortunes will turnaround. I still think that one of the most under-recognized signposts of the future of television broadcasting was when Saturday prime-time, which had HUGE hits until the early '90s, disappeared. Networks simply don't have enough money to spread it around. I think daytime will follow suit within the next 5 years. "The Chew", "Revolution," Katie, Talk, etc. are (in my opinion) the bridge to the future of reruns, talk shows, and whatever else is cheap. Some of the soaps' replacements may be part of that future if the cost is cheap enough.

If you think that's bad, then this will make you toss your cookies....literally, LOL.

http://tv.broadwayworld.com/article/ABCs-THE-CHEW-Launches-Holiday-Cookie-Swap-20111128