I agree. You can't expect an AMC fan to care about OLTL, or vice-versa, just because Agnes created them both.

that applies to those who only saw one soap over another... but of course there are those who watched both soaps (hell the entire ABC daytime line-up)and aren't prejudiced over which one was better..

I agree. You can't expect an AMC fan to care about OLTL, or vice-versa, just because Agnes created them both.

Perhaps unfortunately, it does seem that due to the way they have gone about this both shows have to be a success to work (perhaps due to needing the excitement and fanbase of both shows.)

I didn't know where else to place this tidbit but

I was checking one of my 50 million e-mail accounts, one of which is a Yahoo account and saw a full page ad for AMC/OLTL on the login page (not the same as the Homepage).

Why is this interesting? Because Yahoo has been making a concerted effort to be a future rival to the likes of Hulu by developing original content as well as purchasing streaming rights to shows like classic SNL, which used to be the domain of Hulu.

Online ad negotiations are definitely NOT like broadcast. I am curious as to when this agreement was negotiated.

Had anyone seen this or anything like this?

Actually, I stand corrected:

The ad was only for OLTL. Hmm. The curiosity continues...

Edited May 27, 201312 yr by DramatistDreamer

Perhaps unfortunately, it does seem that due to the way they have gone about this both shows have to be a success to work (perhaps due to needing the excitement and fanbase of both shows.)

And that's just wrong-headed, IMO. What if OLTL has landed a winning pair of HW's in Jessica and Marin? Or AMC with Lisa and Chip? Whichever show improves (that is, if both don't) will be penalized in the end, because their "companion series" didn't. In the end, fans of BOTH shows would end up screwed again.

Again, no matter how I might feel about AMC and OLTL's overall quality, I want to see these shows thrive, because those who DO enjoy the show(s) deserve that much. It won't stop me from calling it as I see it, nor should it anyone else, but that won't stop me from cheering these shows on either.

Edited May 27, 201312 yr by Khan

I get our point, and agree with you Khan. The thing is, I think TOLN felt thewy wouldn't be taken seriously with just one thirty minute show--2 show's start to make some sort of presence for being an "online network" that one show doesn't. Of course now that they are reduced to just 30 minutes a day some of that is less relevant.

I don't understand why it would be better if PP played favorites and did more with the "successful"/better written show? I think it's better for the shows, PP, and the viewers that PP is committed to both and needs both to succeed equally.

Edited May 27, 201312 yr by jfung79

The thing is, I think TOLN felt they wouldn't be taken seriously with just one thirty minute show--2 show's start to make some sort of presence for being an "online network" that one show doesn't.

Agree. In a way, it's no different from P&G jumping into thirty-minute soaps by launching AS THE WORLD TURNS and THE EDGE OF NIGHT on the same day (even though those shows weren't being revived after getting cancelled by another network). Launching just ONE soap might have been safer, but it probably wouldn't have made as much of a splash online.

What if PP/TOLN had brought back just one soap (AMC or OLTL) while launching a brand-new one simultaneously?

Edited May 27, 201312 yr by Khan

Agree. In a way, it's no different from P&G jumping into thirty-minute soaps by launching AS THE WORLD TURNS and THE EDGE OF NIGHT on the same day (even though those shows weren't being revived after getting cancelled by another network). Launching just ONE soap might have been safer, but it probably wouldn't have made as much of a splash online.

What if PP/TOLN had brought back just one soap (AMC or OLTL) while launching a brand-new one simultaneously?

That;'s an interesting question. Maybe it could have worked. The main issue I would see would be fan backlash from those who wouldn't understand why one of the soaps was revived and not the other (and though we've discussed that viewership is not necessarily shared between the two, their cancelation was definitely connected in viewers' minds.)

Good point -- although, frankly, I would've understood if PP had chosen to "save" OLTL over AMC. The latter show had (and still has) a deeper place in my heart, but even I can't deny from a business stand-point that OLTL was in better shape at the end on ABC and was ticking upwards in the ratings.

Edited May 27, 201312 yr by Khan

Good point -- although, frankly, I would've understood if PP had chosen to "save" OLTL over AMC. The latter show had (and still has) a deeper place in my heart, but even I can't deny from a business stand-point that OLTL was in better shape at the end on ABC and was ticking upwards in the ratings.

However, for whatever reason, AMC has been doing (slightly) better in the Hulu numbers consistently...

That, I can't explain, lol.

I feel like Hulu does a little more promotion for AMC than OLTL. I could be imagining it though.

I think PP brought back both because ABC canceled both. It just made sense. With two shows they not only get a "presence," they spread out the risk.

I feel like Hulu does a little more promotion for AMC than OLTL. I could be imagining it though.

I don't see that. I only see the ads that shows both soaps. I can't recall seeing an ad just for one soap or the other.

It might be that AMC's stories feel fresher (IMO) than OLTL's. Or not.

Okay on Yahoo's login page, I just saw a full page ad for AMC.

So that's OLTL-2, AMC-1