ARTICLE: ‘Beyond the Gates’ Splashes In Debut, ‘The Young and the Restless’ & ‘The Bold and the Beautiful’ Hit Season Highs Among Key Demos

[BetterForgotten]

Networks still make most of their revenue from advertising/commercials that happens during live broadcasting for these shows. That’s a fact. BTG and GH are network soaps first and foremost. Depending on what streaming tier you have, that revenue stream is still very limited on the streaming platforms. 

Not saying streaming is irrelevant, but all streaming platforms are struggling with with monetizing that offering to an extent as that business model is totally dependent on subscriptions. Unless they can prove GH or BTG is driving subscriptions to Hulu and Paramount+, those daily views mean very little. People are watching - but are these shows growing subscribers to those platforms or is it the same people watching it every day? 

[Maxim]

I agree. I recently read an article that explained how these days streaming is becoming more and more important and is soon is expected to overtake any other way of watching content in percentage... and the networks know that. And I was just thinking... how many ads I get while streaming...It's even more than watching TV sometimes LOL. So for sure this is a way to get money and sponsors too. 

[dragonflies]

GH being in the top 10 or so on HULU, I always wonder out of how many people watching? 100K? more? Less?? is that really a way to gauge anything though

[Chris B]

CBS stopped focusing solely on live viewing in 2014. Here is an article that confirms that. To say streaming means little in 2025 is not accurate. Part of the streamers becoming profitable is their programming and soaps in particular are an important part of that. Just like Peacock was failing badly and then they add Days of Our Lives and suddenly they had their best quarter ever for new subscriptions. Between paid subscriptions and people paying for the ad free versions, this is still more money these shows are taking in so obviously it would be important to them when looking at the overall picture.

Post strike streamers are looking for things that drive long term subscriptions. Soaps can provide that because they require a year round subscription. Also when BTG was picked up this was mentioned as being a key part of their strategy. The Talk was low rated but also had no replay value on Paramount+ or other platforms like YouTube.

Not to mention the fact that soaps have now become one of the most affordable scripted options on tv. Again, I'm not saying live ratings don't matter but they are only part of the picture.

[bongobong]

I agree with most of your post but here is my quibble. The same people watching every day is nothing to scoff at. Combating churn is a major priority for streamers. The fact that a full year of GH costs less than 2 episodes of Shogun is absolutely helping it stay in production.

[Maxim]

Please register in order to view this content

[BetterForgotten]

I’m not saying live is only thing that matters, but it’s still the primary revenue driver for the networks, not the streamers. Most streamers only just hit profitability last year. In fact, these companies were losing money on these platform for years until very recently. The recent profit gains are in fact being attributed to price hikes than anything else.

This article below does a good job of explaining the complicated economic situation streaming services pose for their companies. Yes, streaming is a growing piece of the puzzle, but companies like Paramount and Disney are barely gaining revenue from them right now and they don’t make up for the losses they’re experiencing from linear live TV.

Streaming turns a corner as Disney, Paramount report profits — but that doesn't solve all of media's problems

 

[BetterForgotten]

It goes back to what @dragonflies asked - what is the volume of these people watching on a day to day basis? Is it even that significant to mitigate the churn issue all platforms face? The streamers don’t give us that viability to gauge that effectiveness.Most streamers go through churn to your point, but GH (for example) is a broadcast show that’s being redistributed on a streaming platform. The streamers are promoting their original content foremost to attract subscribers - not something like GH. There’s an audience for it on the platform - but is that audience sizable enough to drive profitability? That’s something the industry is grappling with regarding these platforms. 

[Errol]

Days of our Lives has never been touted as the reason people subscribed to Peacock. Not saying people didn't jump at the chance and do so, nor not saying the show isn't successful on the platform, but let's not for one minute think it's the sole reason Peacock is still in business. Everything they have released on the subscriptions has always been referenced by sports as the main driver of success.

Other than my note about Peacock, I agree with you. Soaps are helping keep churn low and maintaining subscribers at the service. That's the main goal. Soaps, sports, and a LOT of classic broadcast programming are what are doing the best for the streamers. Their originals, not so much, unless they are Netflix, of course.

That said, live viewing on traditional broadcast does have a huge impact on the bottom line. This is evidenced by today's announcement of layoffs across ABC News, including GMA, GMA3, 20/20 and Nightline, along with even World News Tonight with David Muir. 

When ratings for traditional television reach record low levels, the money starts to dry up. Therefore, while streaming helps combat that, it won't ultimately save everything.

[Chris B]

I don't think Days is the only thing that helped save Peacock, but at the time I believe it was one of two launches they had during that time period so it had to be a big part of it. I don't think they'd ever publicly admit a soap saved them, but I feel like the renewal and sense of calm from the show suggests they're getting positive feedback.

I do agree with this but this is where soaps have a leg up because there is great value in their streaming which is at least some form of additional revenue for them compared to those news programs which rely so much on the live viewership. Similarly, I think Brad Bell uploading the entire series on YouTube was a big game changer because that is something that will continue to generate revenue for them directly. The more money soaps can pull from different pots, the better. 

[bongobong]

No, it's not mitigating all the churn but a portion of it. Let's keep GH as an example, a show I've probably seen less than an hour of in 10 years. If posters here are correct and it's a top 20 show on Hulu for (the sake of argument) say 40 weeks a year, it's much more valuable than middling farelike Class of '09, Unprisoned or Dollface, which are much more expensive, and as you point out, they have to spend money on promoting.

Obviously big-ticket shows like Shogun, The Bear and Paradise drive most subs but they need to pad the catalogue with something. And soaps are cheap. And even cheaper than they were 20 years ago, which is unheard of in the industry for scripted.

[Contessa Donatella]

GH is consistently in Hulu's top 10.

[Khan]

In a way, this conversation about the streamers reminds me of what FOX, The WB and UPN were like in their early days.  In all three cases, you had a fledgling, upstart network that was offering shows that weren't awards magnets or critical darlings, but WERE helping them to establish viewer bases (usually, among those who felt ignored by the Big Three or Four) that could help them to afford more quality shows down the road.  I mean, as awful as some of The WB's earliest shows were - and let's not mince words here, The WB's programming was worse than horseshit in the beginning - on the other hand, there would've been no "Gilmore Girls" or "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" without them.  (Same goes for all the miserable shows we had to suffer through on FOX, including that wretched "90210" and even worse "Melrose Place," before we got "The Simpsons" and "The X-Files").

I think that's what all these streaming services should've done.  Instead of launching right away with prestigious, star-heavy projects that were gonna cost tons of money that they didn't exactly have, with no guarantees that the audiences for them would be there, they should've started much, much smaller, perhaps with shows and movies that could've been produced on shoestring budgets, but were targeted toward demographics that felt underserved by the networks and cable.

Edited March 6 by Khan

[DemetriKane]

Congratulations to them on a great debut! 

Please register in order to view this content

 I'm more concerned about what the numbers will look like 3/6 months later once the excitement dies down. 

Taking a wild guess but I think the show is doing well on streaming atm. Just from a quick search on YouTube and TikTok BTG is being covered by too many regular content creators and I know most of them are not watching Live.

Really looking forward to what King Guza is cooking up for sweeps. I have faith it will be great.

[Chris B]

I think the lessons from the strike are what helped push BTG over the line and also made it an easy decision to renew Days on Peacock. One of the main struggles Peacock said they were having is that when they'd have a hit show, people would cancel when it was over. Sure they may get higher views than a show like Days but does it really even out when they unsubscribe after three months and you've spent $100+ million on 8 episodes?

I think the days of these ridiculously priced limited series are over. I noticed when Max launched The Pitt they went with a network model with a much lower budget and when casting the series they created payment tiers and didn't allow negotiations to stay within budget. This allowed them to stretch the season to 15 episodes and still spend less money than they would on a normal series. And of course it ended up being a big success because all people want is a good story.