I agree about the whole idea of the focus group thing and the tiered system is what happened with ABC and with P&G also. This of course screwed the ratings even more quickly as people turned off gradually.

I think that GH may have ran under budget at certain times, but if they had extra money they used it. With OLTL, I wonder if the money was used by others and they lost it if they didn't.

The soaps like any other programming, have a budget for the year. If a show ran under budget, I'm pretty sure they were given a pat on the head, and then started their new year with a new (and most likely lower) budget, and ABC kept the difference - to use however they saw fit.

What is weird about the move (and everything they did to cut budget) was they also got rid of Pratt at the same time, and tried to return AMC to its roots. The ads at the time were all about the characters who were returning to AMC, returning home. It's like they had two ends of an equation, that couldn't possibly add up to success.

Edited July 17, 201213 yr by EnglishTea

I'm not sure why its unreasonable to assume soaps had their budgets cut for no other reason than they just aren't making as much money anymore. Your ratings and demos drop, you collect less advetisting dollars, it's only logical the budget of any show under these impediments should suffer consequences. For the last so many years the US and World economy has been in a recession, millions of workers laid off, businesses gone under, paycuts in every industry, so why should a TV show or shows be immune to what every other industry have been suffering. Do folks think there is some special budget cutting conspiracy reserved for daytime soap operas?

no offense but I don't remotely believe the AMC move was to save the show. it's obvious it wasn't cause they knew people like David Canary wouldn't want to move, which was their plan.

This doesn't make sense. Most of AMC's cast went to LA regardless and moving them to LA actually made a lot of cast members happier and gave them more job opportunities. It was too expensive to tape a show in NY as there simply isn't much space. It's also not like DC was on much during his last years anyway. The Chandlers themselves were in shambles, to the point where Adam himself was merely a figure head who was there solely for token purposes. When he finally did leave it was for the best for his character, he hadn't had a good story in nearly a decade by that point.

When Frons came on board, he reversed this system - taking the D, E, F, etc and putting them in the A story as the leads, and taking the A, B tiers and putting them in B, C stories as the supporting characters. He tinkered with a proven formula, and ultimately took down ABC daytime, whether that was his charge or not. I don't think it was his decision to take the shows off the air, I think that was ABC/Disney's decision, but Frons made it possible.

What ABC failed to realized was that the long time viewers watched those ladies in their 40s/50s grow up before their eyes, and shoving them off to the side pissed off those viewers. They left, and broke the chain that had sustained soaps for years - passing their show onto the next generation.

This also was a budget issue. In the early 00's veteran soap actors made somewhere around 10 times more then a no name newbie did. Having all of those veterans around likely ate up a good portion of both profits and budget. It would make sense as soaps were failing that they would get rid of veteran performers who simply were too costly. When you can get 10 newbies for the price of 1 veteran then you are probably going to work that newbie that does produce to death in order t save money further down the line. Soaps were on the decline and salaries were slashed anyway you slice it. The show simply could not support all of those figures all of the time as ratings continued to dwindle to relatively nothing.

I'm not sure why its unreasonable to assume soaps had their budgets cut for no other reason than they just aren't making as much money anymore. Your ratings and demos drop, you collect less advetisting dollars, it's only logical the budget of any show under these impediments should suffer consequences. For the last so many years the US and World economy has been in a recession, millions of workers laid off, businesses gone under, paycuts in every industry, so why should a TV show or shows be immune to what every other industry have been suffering. Do folks think there is some special budget cutting conspiracy reserved for daytime soap operas?

I agree. I don't think it's malicious so much as it's the bottom dollar, soaps stopped producing money and as such actors were put on the chopping block and were sacrificed so the show could survive. If they weren't the shows would have ended much sooner then they actually did. Soaps didn't produce enough money to justify the cost of those actors.

I'm not sure why its unreasonable to assume soaps had their budgets cut for no other reason than they just aren't making as much money anymore. Your ratings and demos drop, you collect less advetisting dollars, it's only logical the budget of any show under these impediments should suffer consequences. For the last so many years the US and World economy has been in a recession, millions of workers laid off, businesses gone under, paycuts in every industry, so why should a TV show or shows be immune to what every other industry have been suffering. Do folks think there is some special budget cutting conspiracy reserved for daytime soap operas?

I agree. I don't get it...

I completely understand that soaps had to cut their budgets, and that younger, new talent is cheaper. That doesn't negate the issue of Frons being an arrogant jerk, and thinking his way was best with no real proof.

With AMC as an example - there were other choices that could have been made, starting with offering the higher paid actors less when it was their contract renewals, long before it became absolutely necessary for survival - some may still have walked, however, some may have still stayed.

Frons isn't the only IIC to use focus groups and make piss poor decisions because of them. Wasn't Maureen Bauer and Frankie Frame's deaths the result of focus groups, events from which GL and AW never seemed to recover? The only thing focus groups did to GH was keep Jason front and center for the past 12 years. Many of the soaps were guilty of disposing of the old in favor of the cheaper new. However, Cartooni are the worst offenders because they always seem to go for the absolute worst and give them the airtime.

Soaps don't have the 10 of millions of viewers any longer, so concessions have to be made. That said, nothing is ever going to be good again until all current regimes are gone, but no one is putting money into soaps to make them good again. So we have accept the inevitable. I will give BB props for making an honest effort, however.

I agree about B&B.

With AMC as an example - there were other choices that could have been made, starting with offering the higher paid actors less when it was their contract renewals, long before it became absolutely necessary for survival - some may still have walked, however, some may have still stayed.

This was done on all ABC soaps. Nancy Lee Grahn has flat out said that she made more on Santa Barbara in the 80s and early 90s than she does on GH now. All of the cast and crew at AMC took pay cuts to keep the show on the air. Some sources I've seen had Susan Lucci's pay cut as high as 40%.

This was done on all ABC soaps. Nancy Lee Grahn has flat out said that she made more on Santa Barbara in the 80s and early 90s than she does on GH now. All of the cast and crew at AMC took pay cuts to keep the show on the air. Some sources I've seen had Susan Lucci's pay cut as high as 40%.

GH cast took cuts as well, especially the top players. I've heard that about SL too.

Yes, I agree that all the soaps had to make cuts to survive, but ultimately, most, were short-sighted. Cheap is cheap for a reason.

Y&R, Days and B&B will most likely survive in some form, but it may not be on the U.S. airwaves for long.

Perhaps some day, Netflix (or similar) will work out a deal to air truly classic re-runs of the modern soaps. It may be a long way off, but never say never.

Just like those infinity commercials, what's possible today - taping four shows at once, was something that was thought of as impossible, just 2 years ago. I think the versions of the shows we loved will eventually be available to the loyal soap audience. It just may take a while.

Edited July 18, 201213 yr by EnglishTea

I agree. There will be a different form, or something down the road.

Yes, I agree that all the soaps had to make cuts to survive, but ultimately, most, were short-sighted. Cheap is cheap for a reason.

Y&R, Days and B&B will most likely survive in some form, but it may not be on the U.S. airwaves for long.

Perhaps some day, Netflix (or similar) will work out a deal to air truly classic re-runs of the modern soaps. It may be a long way off, but never say never.

Just like those infinity commercials, what's possible today - taping four shows at once, was something that was thought of as impossible, just 2 years ago. I think the versions of the shows we loved will eventually be available to the loyal soap audience. It just may take a while.

I'd pay for classic GH, GL, OLTL, ATWT and AW! when I say classic, I don't mean 2006!

I'd pay for classic GH, GL, OLTL, ATWT and AW! when I say classic, I don't mean 2006!

2005?

Lol

What I'm not understanding is why ABC even bothered moving AMC across the country, causing upheaval with its cast, if it was going to cancel the show anyway within a certain timeframe. Perhaps if it was on a 10 year or 20 year cancelation plan, I can understand wanting the savings the move produced. But if they were planning to cancel OLTL right away and then AMC a year later, or two at best, was a year or two of savings really worth the expense and upheaval of the move?