If AFTRA had gotten PP to agree to pay the actors their network rate, which is reportedly what they wanted, OLTL alone would've cost them $3,250,000 a month to produce. They said that they thought they could make the project work if they snagged 10% of their current TV audience. PP hoped to charge advertisers 40/CPM, $40 per 1000 views to run ads on the show. 40/CPM is Hulu's basic video ad rate.

This might have sent a message to investors that PP's figures and earnings expectations were unrealistic. PP simply couldn't ask for the same kind of money as Hulu gets, at least not at first. Hulu is an established site with over 20 million hits a month and thousands of TV shows and movies on offer, which brings in broad demographics and keeps people on the site for an extended period of time to watch even more ads. And still, Hulu needed to create a $7.99 per month subscription package in order to afford to provide premium content in HD that can be streamed to TVs. PP's TOLN would've been brand new, would've featured only a handful of programs albeit exclusively, and those programs would have to pay for themselves with ad rates alone. Their overall traffic would be relatively low, especially if they only went with one of the soaps, and their audience demos much narrower.

Assuming they got $40/CPM from advertisers, which was a longshot, and snagged 10% of their TV viewership that would make them $10,000 per ad, per episode. Hulu runs an average of 12 ads per hour-long show. That'd bring in $120,000, only 75% of the production cost. 16 ads and they would break even on cost. If they ran 24 ads per 38 minute show and viewership remained level at 250,000, PP would make $240,000 per episode. $160,000 to pay back production costs. That would leave $80,000 for ABC's licensing fee, corporate overhead, paying towards their $32.5 million dollar start-up debt, and if there's anything left, profit. Even if they put every cent of that $80,000 towards paying back start-up costs, which they couldn't, it would've taken them 400+ episodes to pay it back. Nearly two years where they weren't earning any profit. Even then, that's granting them a much higher ad-rate than they were likely to get and granting them their 10% viewership figure right off the bat and assuming it doesn't shrink.

It's hard to see how it could've possibly worked as planned.

(The $ figures are from Prospect Park co-founder Jeff Kwatinetz's interview with 'All Things D' on The Wall Street Journal Digital Network published on November 3rd.)

Thank you, RVD, for rising above the static with plain old dollars and cents (er, sense).

Forcing people to sell something? Are these soap fans or the Russian mob?

Nah, the Russian mob's way more practical.

Is there another viable network that actually wants either of those two shows?

Well, I hear the WORD Network has a few extra dollars to spend.

Young people can be more readily influenced by advertising. It doesn't matter how much money you have, if you are set in your ways and are not susceptible to advertising, you are of no use.

But that's suggesting older consumers are set in their ways, which is a myth at best, and an ageist conceit at worst. The truth is, older consumers are just as fascinated by new technologies and such as younger ones; and although they might not be as savvy about it all as younger ones are, that doesn't mean they're averse to educating themselves.

Edited November 29, 201114 yr by Khan

Does anyone wonder whether if some fan will take it upon themselves to go to the mob for help? Then again this is upset over AMC and OLTL not GH...<burn>

If NBC was looking at OLTL at all, it might have been a situation where they wanted a certain, popular character for DAYS, but decided that purchasing the rights to the entire show was not worth it for one lousy star.

If NBC was looking at OLTL at all, it might have been a situation where they wanted a certain, popular character for DAYS, but decided that purchasing the rights to the entire show was not worth it for one lousy star.

Gigi Morasco is Adrienne Johnson's long lost daughter!

I mean that it was people telling folks what they wanted to hear even when the evidence didn't back it up.

JMO, but Occam's razor applies here as the simplest solution is PP over-reached. They underestimated the scope and cost of producing AMC/OLTL online. Once reality hit, PP failed to come up with another viable alternative and reluctantly shelved the project.

I don't believe PP is celebrating in the streets over "conning" soap fans. Alas, Disney is probably celebrating as they wanted to be proved right, that there was no profit left to be found in these soaps.

But that's suggesting older consumers are set in their ways, which is a myth at best, and an ageist conceit at worst. The truth is, older consumers are just as fascinated by new technologies and such as younger ones; and although they might not be as savvy about it all as younger ones are, that doesn't mean they're averse to educating themselves.

But do soap sell technology? No, they sell detergent, cake mix, hair color and tooth paste. I think people develop brand loyalties to these things pretty early on. If they do change brands is it advertising that makes them do so? I know it doesn't make me do so. I change base on price, if I change at all, and I'm not over 49. When I bother watching commercials I sit there and laugh at the obvious manipulation.

I look at it this way, when I was a tween my best friend became fascinated by Dirty Dancing. Fell in love with Patrick Swazye. So she started eating JuJu Bees (he mentioned them in the movie) and drinking Mountatin Dew (he was in their commercial) for a good year. I was her best friend so I did the same for a year. Would an adult be so easily influenced? If they were, advertisers would know that and use it. Instead they focus on the Twilight crowd because it is more bang for the buck. Do you really doubt the savvy of the most predatory industry in the world? After all, there is advertising for older people on TV. Usually in the late night hours, but it's for practical things that don't really involve brand loyalty.

I think were getting to that point where the whole genre needs to be reevaluated as a whole starting from the very root of the problems.

I really think somebody should take a look at how the Mexican Telenovelas and English soaps overseas are budgeted as I heard their pretty cost-effective and still do well in the ratings over there. We need a Univision type channel in America where most of their programming is Telenovelas during the day and night. They are really dedicated to these types of shows on those networks and that's what the soaps in America really need more than ever.

Maybe there really should be a new plan created to revive the genre with brand new soaps with very little attachments to old characters. I kind of always knew that AMC and OLTL would be better off becoming a new soap with a new vision and new focus on characters. I think the whole trying to reboot these soaps under their brand name is what hurts these shows from ever living on b/c of how expensive it is to do.

The people who financed web soaps like The Bay are really the people who need to be in charge of financing the new vision of these soaps.

We need new blood and a new vision for these soaps and its time to simply move onto or evolve them into the next direction and stop trying to save these legendary soaps with no real future. I think you can get to a point as a soap fan where you would just like to see some new life breathed into the genre somehow someway. Speaking for myself personally I know I can easily adapt to a new soap but I know others won't but maybe if more new soaps were to start popping up we would see people find alternatives.

Sorry if this has already been said, but there were too many pages to wade through this morning. I don't know how realistic it is since it sounds like Agnes & Lorraine were waiting for actors to sign on before crafting their conclusion, but I wish they'd be given a chance to explain who got shot and what their original ending was in one of the magazines, like Dark Shadows' head writer did in TV Guide when that show went off. Even better, since PP still has the rights to AMC, is there any chance they can eventually make one more final episode based on what Agnes & Lorraine had planned? If no network wanted to air it, they could always show it on their website and sell it as a DVD.

That said, I do appreciate that AMC was able to have Agnes and Lorraine craft the final months and give the show a decent ending, even if it wasn't what they wanted.

We need a Univision type channel in America where most of their programming is Telenovelas during the day and night.

MyNetworkTV, formerly UPN, tried that and failed.

But do soap sell technology? No, they sell detergent, cake mix, hair color and tooth paste. I think people develop brand loyalties to these things pretty early on. If they do change brands is it advertising that makes them do so? I know it doesn't make me do so. I change base on price, if I change at all, and I'm not over 49. When I bother watching commercials I sit there and laugh at the obvious manipulation.

I look at it this way, when I was a tween my best friend became fascinated by Dirty Dancing. Fell in love with Patrick Swazye. So she started eating JuJu Bees (he mentioned them in the movie) and drinking Mountatin Dew (he was in their commercial) for a good year. I was her best friend so I did the same for a year. Would an adult be so easily influenced? If they were, advertisers would know that and use it. Instead they focus on the Twilight crowd because it is more bang for the buck. Do you really doubt the savvy of the most predatory industry in the world? After all, there is advertising for older people on TV. Usually in the late night hours, but it's for practical things that don't really involve brand loyalty.

Of course advertisers know what they are doing, and it has been stated over and over in study after study that they older you get you start to develop brand loyalty, people buy the same brand of soap, mouthwash, toothpaste, ketchup etc.

Why do millions of young people want to dress like rappers, why are they so fast to wear a certain hairstyle, drink a particular drink, etc on the what they have seen their fav celebrity push. Advertiser's know exactly what they are doing and which age group to target for which product

Not only did ABC manage to get some money by canceling the shows and selling the rights, they also managed to unload the sets and wardrobe. I wonder what PP is going to do with the stuff they bought. That could be one hell of an E-bay auction. Otherwise they are the permanent owners of Frankie Hubbard's scrubs, LaKane's myriad one-shoulder dresses and John McBain's leather jacket. It's the thrift store from hell.

Of course advertisers know what they are doing, and it has been stated over and over in study after study that they older you get you start to develop brand loyalty, people buy the same brand of soap, mouthwash, toothpaste, ketchup etc.

Why do millions of young people want to dress like rappers, why are they so fast to wear a certain hairstyle, drink a particular drink, etc on the what they have seen their fav celebrity push. Advertiser's know exactly what they are doing and which age group to target for which product

Yep. It's like the Jabott makeup they are selling. Maybe when I was 13 they could have convinced me to but it. Now, I've been wearing Estee Lauder since about age 14. No matter how many Jabbot, Maybeline or Cover Girl commercials I see, Estee Lauder is my brand.

But do soap sell technology? No, they sell detergent, cake mix, hair color and tooth paste. I think people develop brand loyalties to these things pretty early on. If they do change brands is it advertising that makes them do so? I know it doesn't make me do so. I change base on price, if I change at all, and I'm not over 49. When I bother watching commercials I sit there and laugh at the obvious manipulation.

I'm not sure if today's younger viewers are any more likely to believe what's said in commercials.