This week. Waiting on something to add to it.

Can't Wait!!!!!

Will there actually be news?????

I don't bemoan the loss of the P&G soaps anywhere near the way I used to. It's time to take a more adult attitude and realize that these are just television shows, and that this is just a business. (Unless a crime is being committed, or consumer safety is compromised, I believe that the interests of shareholders must come first in a capitalist society.) Furthermore, I needed to get off my high horse, when I thought that these P&G shows were so great. (It is my opinion that they were better than the competition, though that hardly counts for much. If you exclude the Marland era at ATWT and early-90s GL, I now strongly believe that the P&G soaps were nowhere near Masterpiece Theatre in terms of quality at anytime in the past 30 years.)

To the question at hand, I really don't see how P&G was responsible for initiating the cancellation of any of its soaps. Rather, any culpability they have simply lies in the fact that they chose not to fight for their soaps' survival after they were cancelled (which is understandable, as soap operas were no longer good promotional vehicles for P&G's core products). Here's some comments on each of their long-running soaps:

EON: Unlike the case with AW, GL, or ATWT, it is true that P&G made the ultimate decision to end production on EON. But seriously, how can they be held more responsible for killing the show than ABC? Even though ABC said they wanted to continue to air EON after December 1984, it was the ABC executives who let their affiliates choose to drop EON. In January 1985, more ABC affiliates were going to drop the show. (And obviously ratings would have been much better had all ABC stations aired EON.) By late 1984, P&G was just breaking even on EON, and they were going to lose money on it after more ABC stations were going to drop it. Nobody can fault P&G for choosing to end production on a show that was going to lose them money.

SFT: This was a very similar situation to EON's demise. While P&G was the one who pulled the plug (while NBC was willing to continue airing the show), the show's ratings had become so poor in good measure because so many NBC stations didn't air SFT.

AW: While P&G didn't do much to fight for it, NBC was the one who cancelled the show. (And along with bad ratings, there were other good reasons for doing so, as the demos for AW didn't fit in with what NBC Daytime wanted. Now, I firmly believe that Passions was a horrendous replacement for AW, but that's a different issue, and it doesn't mean that AW's cancellation was a mistake on NBC's part.) Actually, I have read elsewhere on the internet that NBC wanted this show gone as early as 1988, but it was P&G that wouldn't let NBC cancel it. (The same thing supposedly happened again in 1993.) By 1999, P&G most likely got tired of fighting with NBC (over a show that was extremely unlikely to see good ratings again).

GL: What really surprises me about the GL cancellation is why is took so long. I have read on this board that CBS considered cancelling GL as early as 1996 (and I am guessing that P&G refused to let that happen). There was no reason whatsoever as to why the show wasn't cancelled by 2005. There was a constant need to shrink the budget in order to remain on CBS, but that in turned caused ratings to sag further. (And let us not also forget that it was CBS who very reprehensibly allowed its O&Os to move GL from the afternoon to the morning.) Even CBS kept this show on for far too long, so who could even blame P&G for not fighting for it after the cancellation?

ATWT: This was the most disappointing cancellation, because (in addition to being the crown jewel of all the P&G soaps) ATWT never spent many years teetering on the edge of cancellation the way the other shows did. While the show was at the bottom of the ratings, it was pretty close to what AMC was receiving. (If I recall correctly, some of DOOL's and OLTL's ratings from the time would sometimes nearly come down to ATWT levels.) But, in fairness, ATWT had by far the worst demos of any soap. It is quite possible that Les Moonves' desire to give his wife a talk show also led to ATWT being cancelled a few years on the early side. (Though I must state that turned out to be a good business decision, as much as I don't like The Talk.) I certainly don't see how P&G was as responsible as CBS for ATWT's cancellation. For a long time, I was upset that P&G made no effort to fight for a show that was still salvageable, but I currently recognize that a post-2010 ATWT would have headed in the direction of GL.

AW: Actually, I have read elsewhere on the internet that NBC wanted this show gone as early as 1988, but it was P&G that wouldn't let NBC cancel it. (The same thing supposedly happened again in 1993.) show on for far too long, so who could even blame P&G for not fighting for it after the cancellation?

P&G never had that power at NBC, maybe at CBS during the 60's. In 1988 SB was lower rated than AW, from 89-91 Generations and Santa Barbara were lower rated than AW. In 1993, DAYS was also in danger of cancelation when the some guy on drugs (literately) was running NBC Daytime and proposed NBC cancel all their soaps. SB was killed by him, lucky for DAYS and AW he never got his wish for NBC to get out of the soap biz. So AW was never in danger of cancelation in the 80's and most of the 90's as networks until 1999 canceled their lowest rated soap when they want to launch a new one. The cancelation of AW while keeping the lower rated SUBE was something that just doesn't usually happen.

With that said, AW was never the favorite of NBC. In the 80's DAYS was the anchor and SB was the Emmy Queen of the lineup. AW was the forgotten child in Brooklyn. Had SB got higher ratings than AW then no doubt NBC would have canceled AW the first chance they had. Lucky for AW it was always the 2nd most watched NBC soap in the 1980's and 1990's until the day it was canceled.

1988? I've heard NBC wanted to dump ANOTHER WORLD as far back as 1980!

OMG Max, I agree with almost every word of your post

The whole thing makes me angry every time I think about it. If P&G had cared the shows would still be on, and likely thriving, today. GL and ATWT both thrived when P&G actually cared about repair work. And now, as mentioned above, there is nothing, not even DVD releases. There was nothing like the P&G soaps, yet they do nothing but spit on their own legacy.

Word! And it still makes me angry when I think about what was done to them during their last months on air. I can't think of the 2 (names) who were responsible for the messes, but GL's was female. Carly and Holden would never ever have had an affair and GL was just a shell of what it once was in the end. I would rather watch ATWT and GL reruns than anything else on daytime, except Y&R some days. It was so personal to me because I watched them when I was little with my grandmother. They were a part of my life every single day for decades.

OMG Max, I agree with almost every word of your post

Thanks so much for your kind words, Juppiter. Even though we disagree on politics, I also really admire your objectivity.

This week. Waiting on something to add to it.

Still waiting...................................

I remember a former poster on here, said CBS offered to buy GL and ATWT since the mid-90's, but each time P&G said no. Honestly, I am glad GL ended. Peapack was a disaster, ATWT could have/should have continued going.

I think it with me who mentioned at CBS wanted to buy out the soaps in 2001 but was rebuffed by Procter and Gamble. Proctor and Gamble what smart, and they made a considerable profit over the next decade. Personally, I blame Procter and Gamble because they did not care about their shows. Bill Bell said PG had stopped making money all the shows and wanted out. I do blame CBS for cutting licensing fees which forced the shows 2go allo budget. Granted, days makes their show on less than $100,000 per episode.

I certainly don't fault P&G for choosing not to sell their soaps to CBS. They wanted to milk all the profit out of their own creations for as long as possible (which was in the best interest of shareholders). I'm also not convinced that the quality of ATWT/GL would have been any better had CBS owned them. Nor am I convinced that they'd still be on the air, because we have already seen networks cancel soaps that they have owned.

If anything, selling soaps to a network may hurt them, as Agnes Nixon found out. And while this is an unpopular opinion, I do not feel that Nixon was wronged by ABC, because ABC had a legal right to treat AMC/OLTL however it wanted the moment the network paid Nixon lots of money in order to acquire them.

Edited April 18, 201312 yr by Max

I was always under the impression it was P&G. They didn't give a [!@#$%^&*].

I got to thinking about this post and how shocking it was when As the World Turns cancelled given the fact that it had powerful network lead ins such as The Young and the Restless and the Bold and Beautiful. At the start, Chris Goutman was not a bad EP- the new sets were very much needed and the soap needed to be re organize. The problem was that he was not replaced after his first five years when ratings got weaker and it was clear he was unable to solve the demos issue. Even in 2007 in 2008, World Turns was viable given the Nuke press and still doing well but when the budget cuts went into effect it was as is Procter Gamble decided to kill the show and the HH ranking dropped from third to last place within less than one year. The company wanted out and Goutman was thier tool. No other soap would have kept his regime when people like Raunch were stll around and willing to work.

I certainly don't fault P&G for choosing not to sell their soaps to CBS. They wanted to milk all the profit out of their own creations for as long as possible (which was in the best interest of shareholders). I'm also not convinced that the quality of ATWT/GL would have been any better had CBS owned them. Nor am I convinced that they'd still be on the air, because we have already seen networks cancel soaps that they have owned. If anything, selling soaps to a network may hurt them, as Agnes Nixon found out. And while this is an unpopular opinion, I do not feel that Nixon was wronged by ABC, because ABC had a legal right to treat AMC/OLTL however it wanted the moment the network paid Nixon lots of money in order to acquire them.

It seems likr CBS and Moonves can work wonders. The network is his main revenue stream and I think they would have done thier best even ifit eant each doap having a NCIS feel.

It seems likr CBS and Moonves can work wonders. The network is his main revenue stream and I think they would have done thier best even ifit eant each doap having a NCIS feel.

I certainly respect your opinion, but I still feel that CBS would have continued to favor the Bell soaps (even if it owned ATWT & GL). Also, given that the P&G soaps had huge demo problems (by the time CBS reportedly offered to buy them), it would have been extremely difficult for any owner to correct that.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this topic as I recently spoke with Angelica McDaniel, Senior Vice President, CBS Daytime, on this very topic in an upcoming interview. I'm interested in seeing the fan response before posting the interview in full on the website.

So, I ask...Did CBS cancel "Guiding Light" and "As The World Turns," or was their production company, Procter & Gamble, the ultimate culprits?

Whats the hold up?????

Oh, Errol....