While times have definitely changed, it on average takes shows at least two or three seasons to find an audience. And thinking someone will find a show with or without good advertising definitely will take more than two or three episodes. Definitely one. Which was my point. 

 

Using this show for example...I saw an ad for it cuz I watch soaps on my system. And completely forgot about it until we started talking about it regularly here. Hey, it happens. I can only imagine how other casual viewers might feel. Especially now with so many streaming channels now. 

The thing is network’s can’t afford to keep shows with such low ratings. They don’t bring in the advertiser revenue to justify the cost of production for these shows. No advertiser wants to pay for ad space on a show that barely anyone is watching (especially one that isn’t resonating with the core demographic they want to reach). It’s a harsh reality, but it’s a business.

Streaming plays by a different set of rules, but again, if not enough people are streaming those shows and the streaming services aren’t driving enough new subscriptions based on those shows, they won’t last long.

Which simply proves that while times have changed, some things remain the same.  

 

Again, like you that's why I said above that I do hope that going onto a streaming service will allow more people to hopefully discover it and hopefully save it. It wouldn't be the first show that moved to streaming and found a wider audience so again...hopeful.  

18 minutes ago, BetterForgotten said:

Streaming plays by a different set of rules, but again, if not enough people are streaming those shows and the streaming services aren’t driving enough new subscriptions based on those shows, they won’t last long.

Pretty much. I mean, Netflix went from pretty much renewing everything because they were still starting up to cancelling a bunch of shows within the first few weeks of their debut seasons. Likely the reason why they kept those early shows going was to build up their own content library, but now that they've done so they feel like they can cancel shows that aren't driving subscriptions to their standard.

On 2/17/2022 at 10:33 PM, BetterForgotten said:

The thing is network’s can’t afford to keep shows with such low ratings. They don’t bring in the advertiser revenue to justify the cost of production for these shows. No advertiser wants to pay for ad space on a show that barely anyone is watching (especially one that isn’t resonating with the core demographic they want to reach). It’s a harsh reality, but it’s a business.

Streaming plays by a different set of rules, but again, if not enough people are streaming those shows and the streaming services aren’t driving enough new subscriptions based on those shows, they won’t last long.

 

An interesting aspect that I have been encountering in the copious broadcast reports that have been finding their way to my inbox (most of which I haven't yet read) is that industry executives seem to believe that FAST is the future. FAST stands for Free Ad Supported Television.

Netflix does tend to cancel series relatively quickly these days, compared to the past, when they would take much more time to cultivate an audience for a show. Netflix also has raised subscription fees more than once in the past five or six years. And Netflix is no longer the only game in town. Disney+ is gaining considerable headway, not to mention HBO+ and Paramount+ just had a rebrand in an effort to further boost their visibility. I'm not sure Netflix's strategy of dumping shows will turn out to be such a successful one, because I know for a fact that many creators have begun to bypass them because of their restrictive contracts. Most creators don't want their hard work to go the way of ODAAT, trapped on a streaming service with very limited options for a second life for their series. Yes ODAAT did eventually find an alternative that Netflix found acceptable but the series lost a lot of momentum in the meantime. Nobody who cares about their creations wants that.

Well the last episode is 56 minutes long - at around 41 minutes the screen goes to black and I'm pretty sure it was the original cliffhanger. The last 15 minutes wraps up the show in a nice bow.

It's a shame it didn't catch on, but hey, if you want to watch a 10 episode prime time soap that isn't left with cliffhangers, it's on Hulu right now.

The flashbacks from 1987. Were more engaging than the present day. Which just felt flat and unengaging. No character really stood out.

Edited March 30, 20223 yr by victoria foxton

On 2/15/2022 at 9:19 PM, DramatistDreamer said:

Oh wow. 

The series is not terrible. Although I find the backstory to be far more interesting than the current stories, which seem fairly generic.

They seem to use that character Margaret to lay out exposition. I did like how that conversation between Lettie and Margaret was written in episode 3. Not too expository (for once) and just enough sniping dialogue beneath the surface to give the scene some bite. And in the meantime, we get to learn some nuggets about the family dynamics and the nature of Lettie and Margaret's relationship. If only all the scenes where writers needed to inform us could have been written that way.

Still, the pacing within episode 3 was solid, it certainly didn't drag.

Margaret's dialogues need to be improved, they often come off as somewhat clumsy, laying out exposition for the sake of giving out information, but given the ABC/Hulu situation, the writers may not have time.

 

 

On 3/30/2022 at 2:45 PM, victoria foxton said:

The flashbacks from 1987. Were more engaging than the present day. Which just felt flat and unengaging. No character really stood out.

‘That’s exactly what I had been saying.

 I finally caught episode 10 on the ABC website, of all places. That’s where I caught each of the episodes, but you have to watch before they get locked down. If the series is canceled, why bother? Why not just leave all the episodes unlocked on the ABC website and put in ad breaks per usual?