The soap magazines hung on better than the soaps!

Today, I was fiddling around with my usual ratings charts. What started it was the claim by Brenda Dickson (to TVGuide.ca's Nelson Branco) that when she came and left to Y&R, that coincided with Y&R hitting and leaving #1 status. That seems palpably false, since she last left Y&R in 1987 and Y&R didn't hit #1 (where it has stayed) till the 1998-1999 season. This figure illustrates the point.



You can't help but look at those lines after 1990, though, and just click your tongue at the unrelenting bleeding.

So then I got to wondering, "how badly did this all this soap decline hurt the magazines"? The figures and tables below provide some data about this, and they are somewhat surprising. During the 2000s, the magazines have pretty much "held on". Indeed, Soaps in Depth emerged in this decade, and quickly overtook Soap Opera Digest (both the ABC and CBS versions separately overtook SOD in newsstand sales). Some caveats:

A. Data come from the Audit Bureau of Circulations, and only are available free/to the public from 1998 forward (with 1997 data embedded)
B. Public data are limited to the top 100. Soap magazines dropped out of the top 100 in total circulation after 2002, and only Soap Opera Digest appeared in the top 100. So, I don't know about later data.
C. Looking at "single copy sales" (newsstand), the story is less bleak--it actually seems to show relative stability. 3-4 soap magazines appear in the top 100 in every year from 1997-present. Soap Opera Weekly dropped out of the top 100 in 2008 though, so I estimated its average newsstand circulation (at 100,000) for 2008. That may be an over-estimate. (The bleeding circulation for SOW may explain some of the Carolyn Hinsey sacking? Even though it was probably not her fault).

The figures are actually encouraging to me, because it suggests a kind of levelling off of circulation (relative to the shows themselves). From 1997-2000, the single-copy sales include Soap Opera Digest, Soap Opera Weekly, and Soap Opera Update. (In 1997-98, Soap Opera Magazine is also included). After 2000, Soap Opera Update disappears, but is replaced by Soaps in Depth (CBS and ABC) in the newsstand top-100. Interestingly, from 2005 on, Soaps in Depth (both versions) actually EXCEED Soap Opera Digest in newsstand sales.

Since the soap magazines held on better than the soaps themselves, it does make one wonder if viewers who "lapsed" in watching the shows continued to "keep up" by reading the magazines. And if this is the case, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Does the availability of spoilers, recaps and pictures actually hurt the original product?

If anyone is interested, I have the magazine-specific data, and can share it at a later date.

Total circulation of Soap Opera Digest during the years in which it appeared in the Audit Bureau Top 100 Total Circulation



Newsstand circulation of Soap Opera Digest from 1997-2008



Total newsstand circulation of all soap magazines listed in the Audit Bureau top-100, 1997-2008.
(Note, 2008 figure for Soap Opera Weekly is an estimate)

The Template for Saving Daytime, Part 2

In my last post, I suggested that Marland's Rules, plus a few others, were essentially being used by Maria Arena Bell to "save" the Young and The Restless. The show had become mired in sensationalistic plots, changing characters (e.g., Nikki now a senatorial candidate???), and a general disorganization that did not bode well for the future. I suggested that Maria Arena Bell and her team have "saved" the show creatively.

But "saving" a show creatively IS NOT equivalent to saving it financially. The primetime landscape is littered with shows that were very good--often critically successful--that didn't last more than a few episodes.

In the world of commercial TV, the only way a show can survive is to attract enough (of the right kind of) eyeballs to make it appealing to advertisers to pay the freight. With ever shrinking numbers of viewers, the traditional broadcast advertiser-supported model is getting trickier and tricker to uphold.

In his remarkable interview with Maria Arena Bell and Paul Rauch, from which I quoted heavily in my last post, Nelson Branco also revealed that this leader has keen insights into the evolution of the business model. I believe she is on the right track regarding how to save daytime financially too. Now...if only someone would listen!

What the rest of this show suggests is that the Bell team has figured out a way to maximize viewership using a mix of quality and sumptuousness, DVR loyalty, cable and internet distribution, and international distribution. In other countries, viewership has been further maximized by moving to late afternoon/early evening time slots (Canada, eh!).

It is up to the media outlets and the advertisers to figure out how to monetize that. Y&R is delivering the eyeballs. By my count, the number is close to 8-10 million daily viewers in the US, and substantially more in international distribution. (CBS claims 5.6 million domestically and about another 4.5 million globally, but I think these are underestimates only count live TV broadcast viewers). Now, it is time for those in charge of making money to capitalize on those well delivered eyeballs.

Here is what I mean:

1. Maintain a unified creative vision and historical integrity

Translation: You have to want to watch the show!

Arena Bells says:

We have a very respectful relationship with the network. But this is my show and my vision.

This is standard for primetime. A showrunner is selected, and the show rises and falls with the showrunner's vision. Of course there is (always, endemically) corporate interference, but there is some respect for the "auteur". Daytime has really let that go in the last two decades.

If the show isn't watchable...if it doesn't produce an enjoyable and coherent experience...people won't tune in. This is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the survival of a soap.

One of the reasons Y&R still 'works' just happened in my home. My parents visited. They haven't watched the show regularly since the late 1980s. But, when I clicked it on, there was Katherine and Jill and Nikki and Victor and Paul and Jack and Ashley and Neil and Brad... Moreover, to the extent that those characters were seen, they all still acted like they used to. Victor was still controlling, and still in his love-hate dance with Nikki. Jack was still trying to bring down the moustache.

Because Y&R offers a consistent feeling of "home" to its loyal viewers, they keep returning. Obviously in ever-shrinking numbers (see below...there are reasons for that)...but more of them keep returning than for any other show.

(I should add that Y&R also manages to remain visually pleasurable to watch. Sumptuous sets and lighting, in crisp widescreen high definition. Y&R has been the trademark 'beautiful' soap from the beginning. It is easier for viewers to keep tuning into something that is a sensual treat, with stirring music, and a wide array of captivating sets...than to watch something that just looks cheap).

But what about the future?

2. Consider changing the timeslots

I have previously written that, in the rest of the world, soaps have mostly left the daytime. In those countries where they are enormously successful, late afternoon/early evening/even primetime berths assure sufficient numbers.

To this, Maria Arena Bell says, in her Branco interview,

All I can tell you is that there is talk about a lot of possibilities. We’ll have to see. As you know, there are constant changes in programming. Look at Jay Leno — he is filling the 10 p.m. slot five days a week! So, who knows?

In my view, the experiment to do is to let Y&R premiere each new episode weeknights at 8 pm (Eastern Time), and then rebroadcast the next day (on CBS) at 12:30 pm (Eastern Time), or the equivalent Central/Mountain/Pacific times. The cost savings for CBS would be enormous...that is five hours of primetime they wouldn't have to program. There would be only relatively small incremental licensing costs to Bell. If CBS follows the "Leno" model, I'd urge them to try it with Y&R. (This would likely mean cancelling the Soapnet deal).

3. On TV: Build it, they will come, and then show the advertisers

Following on what Sara Bibel said, Maria Bell notes in her Branco interview:

If you take into account that a third more viewers are watching our show since that’s the statistic — if you factor in DVR+7 — then the soaps have not taken the dip media analysts have claimed. There are still a lot of eyes on this show. Yesterday, we celebrated 20 years as the No. 1 soap opera in America — along with being No. 1 in all the demos by the widest margin we’ve ever had. Yes, I agree — we need the numbers from viewers who catch us on their computer, DVR, and SOAPnet. Even without those numbers, we’re second only to Oprah in daytime. That’s a lot of eyes! We’re certainly more viable than people give us credit for.

Think about that! It is true. Y&R is usually the #2 show in daytime...overall and with the "desirable" demographic.

Moreover, it gains a large number with those DVR views. I confess I am one of them.

This is a huge audience. The problem is not the show's...they are still delivering the eyeballs.

The flaw is the networks and the advertisers, who have failed to find better ways to capture these fast-forwarding eyeballs. The lack of creativity is on the part of the advertisers and the broadcasters.

Why are none of the successful internet strategies being used on TV? Banner ads? DVR codes that prohibit fast-forwarding (with the quid-pro-quo of fewer and more memorable ads)? Ads that flash a single "slide like" message on screen...so you can't miss the message even if you fast forward?

Product placement is also a clever approach, but it has really been done badly so far.

The next few points were not stated by Arena Bell, but are consistent (I believe) with her vision.

4. On the Internet: Build it, they will come, and then show the advertisers

I have mentioned before how broadly Y&R is streaming these days: Fancast.com, msn.com, cbs.com, youtube.com, yr.globaltv.com.

Every one of these is a countable hit, often with a cookie-trackable user, and with the ability to track minute-by-minute tuneouts, fast-forwards, reversals, quits. CBS.com even recently added a social networking/chat component (dish while you watch). Honestly, it is a data analyst's wet dream. Think of all the rich qualitative data you could get from the chat transcripts!

Interestingly this is all being done with virtually no promotion. My fear is that they don't want to inflame the affiliates.

Technologically, they have already figured out that delivering a smaller number of ads makes the audience happy, and increases the memorability of the ads. The presentations sometimes allow surrounding screens and banners to keep the ad ALWAYS PRESENT during the show. You cannot skip or fast forward the ads...but few fans get upset because the promotions are few in number.

Let us also add that if we could just DUMP the expensive infrastructure of affiliates and broadcast (too many middlemen), it would cost a lot less to deliver these shows over the internet. No FCC licensing.

The infrastructure is there. It is time to stop living in fear of the old media, and to sell-sell-sell the new!

There are clear indications of success in this sphere. In Canada, Y&R was recently listed among the top internet search terms. At CBS.com, Y&R consistently appears (solely among daytime soaps) as among the "most popular" streaming shows.

I'd add "move to cable" as an option...but...err...Soapnet hasn't exactly embraced soaps these days. I will note, though, that by airing Y&R in "early prime", that show is the number-one rated show for the network. Soapnet may not want soaps anymore...but surely some cable outfit wouldn't mind?

5. Cultivate and maintain an international base

The Bell shows are clear international winners. B&B is the big daddy here, but Y&R does pretty well too. Per the Young and the Restless 35th anniversary fact sheet,

The Young and the Restless international markets include Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, the Middle East, New Zealand, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey and the U.K.

The Young and the Restless is currently distributed in nearly 30 foreign countries on five continents through Sony Pictures Television International. The episodes currently aired abroad are not concurrent with the episodes airing in the U.S. and Canada.

The Young and the Restless is the top-rated daytime drama (M-F) in France.

These are extra sources of revenue. Along with (hopefully) growing revenues from cable and internet streaming and clever ways of monetizing DVR views, this international base buttresses a show against declines in the homeland.

I also think that the historical consistency and lush beauty of the show helps in international distribution. Having lived overseas, one of the things that international viewers love about American serials is their conspicuous consumption. Big cars, big houses, (at one time) big shoulders. Y&R is one of the few soaps that still embraces this quintessential component of the American serial.

Personally, I love verite too. I think there is room for that. But the traditional base of the international appeal of US shows is "lifestyles of the rich and famous". Y&R offers that.

Failing to re-invest: Another reason for the decline of soaps

How did we get here? I have shared my obsession with ratings charts, and I hope I have been slightly convincing to at least some folks that the linear ratings decline we have experienced in the US since at least the late 1980s is trans-genre, and not really related to any particular show or creative team.

Some good skeptics have written me to say "But some of this decline has been due to VCRs and then DVRs, which never got counted". That is totally true! Indeed, I have argued elsewhere that when you add Y&R's CBS broadcast plus 7-day DVR numbers plus Soapnet plus legal online streaming (fancast, msn, youtube, globaltv.com) it is actually plausible that Y&R might have 8-10 million US viewers per episode.

Still, that monolithic decline can't be ignored. One irate correspondent wrote me privately to ask (I'm paraphrasing) what I was smoking, and if I was twelve years old and completely unwise. OBVIOUSLY, it is the decline in QUALITY (which may be attributed in part to the youth-grab...the desire to tell quick stories with young newbies, and to chase a more juvenile taste) that caused soap decline. Honestly, I'm not so sure. I'll accept the quality decline, but I remind myself that correlation is not causation. We don't know what is chicken, and what is egg. I'm inclined to think that some of the quality decline is due to REACTIONS to declining viewership and loss of dollars. Newbies are cheaper, for example.

In the end, it is probably non-sensical to have the quality-ratings debate. Clearly, ratings loss has many factors (viewing choices, women out of the home, overall decline of TV, loss of intergenerational viewing, social perception of soaps as 'dated' and 'uncool', etc.). Quality may be a part of that, but the direction of causation is undoubtedly reciprocal. Quality never really reflects ratings...otherwise, shows like St. Elsewhere and Boomtown would have been top-rated (or Masterpiece Theater), and shows like According to Jim would only have lasted a single season.

Anyway, the point of this post is something different. On some soap boards, I (and others) have expressed the idea that a key problem with modern soaps is that they are often 30-70 years old! As much as I love my 35 year old Y&R (and would mourn if it disappeared), I'm also 43...and not the desirable demographic. It would be fine if my Y&R could continue, but there need to be new soaps for the new generation.

As a cultural referent, I mention music, movies and primetime. In none of these genres do we expect the young (desirable demographic) consumers to be enjoying the stuff of their parents and grandparents. Each new generation needs its own music (rock and roll, folk, progressive rock, disco, rap/hip-hop, punk...each was new music for a new generation). The 80s saw St. Elsewhere, the 90s ER, and the 2000s House/Grey's Anatomy. This is natural.

Note, I'm not just parroting Madison Avenue's preference for young eyeballs. For any organization/entity to be viable, it needs REPLACEMENT. As people die, others must be born. This requires that pop culture constantly evolve to be relevant.

Now, I know that some people claim that our chestnut soaps can evolve and be relevant. But honestly, I don't think so. Marceline at SON has called this the over-reliance on nostalgia. AMC shifts to film look, and the viewers complain. GL shifts to the new production model (I realize that show has other problems) and people call it cheap. Y&R shifts to a more primetime feel (thanks, LML!) and viewers call it sacrilege. Part of the reason there is an ENDURING audience for soaps is the familiarity of our soap worlds. Familiar characters, actors, sets, stories...

What this means, I think, is that we need a regular sequence of retiring old soaps, and building new ones. Indeed, during the salad days of soaps, the networks agreed! Of course, making new soaps is a financially risk endeavor. There is a lot of startup cost. And history shows that MOST soaps don't survive very long. The long-term survivors are quite few and far apart. But without that constant new investment, the chance for a new show to "stick" and become relevant is nil.

The consequence of that is what we are seeing now: More deaths than births. Eventually, the genre dies off.

This is not a new argument. The incomparable Irna Phillips said this in a Time Magazine article in 1940, archived by the equally incomparable SteveFrame here:

Today's Children ran for six and a half years. It was still number one with Crossley when Irna stopped writing it. She based her move on the belief that her characters had run through all possible logical situations.

"When you have saturated logic," she says, "you should take your show off the air."

The chart below illustrates the problem.



Look at the 60s and 70s. There was a huge number of premieres (blue), and a huge number of cancellations (purple).

"You can't succeed if you don't try".

I realize that even a decade ago the networks were still trying. Not much--purple begins to outweigh blue by the 80s. Now, we're in a solid purple stage. Maybe I should have colored that red...the bleeding out of the genre.

How do I end this with hope? It's hard. I do note that new forms of soaps (e.g., Roger Newcomb's Scripts and Scruples, all the remarkable fanfic that SteveFrame's SoapsWeb is now honoring--at places like Soapoperanetwork and DaytimeRoyalty) is emerging. But that form is labor-of-love, not labor-of-profit.

I hope, someday soon, the financials might change...and broadcasters might again try. We need more blue on this chart!

Another ratings reality check (or don't blame Ellen Wheeler)

Here, in the past, I have put up ratings graphs that show the ratings (household, per Neilsen) for our soaps in historical context. I updated the graph with season-to-date ratings. Showing only currently-living soaps, here are the ratings trends as of 11/2008:


If you ignore the 1950s (where rapid expansion of televisions and television options meant the ratings fluctuated widely, and really aren't so comparable to the "saturated market" ratings we've had since the 1960s and beyond), you see a very clear general trend of growth through the mid-1970s, and then a very clear decline trend ever since. Now, there are some interesting local peaks (GH in the early 1980s; Y&R in the early 1990s), but for the most part all the soaps have moved in lockstep, downward, since the mid-70s.

This is so relentless and universal a trend IT CANNOT BE BLAMED on the creative state of any show or any regime! We really can only blame things like the growth of tv (cable) and non-tv (internet, games) options, the movement of women out of the house, the reduction in intergenerational viewership due to multi-TV households, etc.

The eye does not lie. That is pretty much a STRAIGHT LINE, and it began in the late 70s or early 80s. THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL about the decline we see today. It is nothing but a "dying off" process (loss of viewers without replacement, at a fairly steady rate) that began almost 3 decades ago.

Oh, if only I could have a nickel every time someone said "the creative state of soaps today is so lousy, and that is why we're losing viewers". Uh uh! The rate of loss is no more significant now than it was 20+ years ago--when some shows were thought to be at Marland-esque, Bell-esque etc. creative heights.

Oh, if only I could have a dime every time someone said "if only TPTB would do such-and-such, ratings would go up." (This probably includes promotion...although I think more promotion might be able to be the one thing that built slight audience growth). Uh uh. NOTHING--not even the blockbuster of Luke and Laura--could stem the trend. If you look at GH in the early 80s, you see that it definitely spiked TEMPORARILY due to that incredible storyline. It clearly brought new viewers into the system. But it COULD NOT LAST (and it didn't), because larger demographic trends were dragging the shows down.

And I want a dollar everytime someone blames OJ Simpson! If you focus your eyes on the early-mid 1990s in the graph above. I defy you to find any significant deviation in HH ratings decline trends! If OJ had not existed, the declines would have been EXACTLY the same. I'll try to show this more clearly below.

The table below tries to show the phenomenon in a different way. Averaging across all shows that were on at any given time, the figure shows the minimum and maximum ratings in each decade. Again, don't trust the 1950s data, because the new technology (TV) and explosive growth of households and viewing options really messes up those numbers



First, focus on second-last column, annualized ratings change. Note that, in every decade, the trajectory has been decline. Second, note that the rate of decline has been EXACTLY THE SAME in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. The rate of decline DOUBLED from the 1960s to the 1970s, and it DOUBLED AGAIN in the 1980s. Since then, it has been a fairly CONSTANT loss of 0.15 per year.

From this perspective, it again reminds us THAT NOTHING SPECIAL is happening now. Soaps are not in some "sudden freefall". They are in a constant decline.

On the other hand, the far right column shows us the consequences of this steady viewer loss in the face of a smaller-and-smaller shinking base. This shows us the % of viewers lost annually in each decade. (In other words, of the viewers who started the decade, what percent of those viewers were lost, on average, in each year of that decade?). As you can see, because the number of viewers is smaller and smaller, the steady loss of viewers represents an ever larger proportion each decade.

The current decade evinces about an annual 5% loss...which means (in the 2000s) the steady viewer loss indicated that, of those who started the decade, only about half remained as viewers as we near the end of the decade.

We see this most alarmingly in another post I shared recently, that said GL/ATWT lost about 30% of their viewers in the last year. (Canadian TV Guide further added that GL lost about 21% of its desirable demo during the same period). Those proportions seem apocalyptic...but they are really only that large because of the steady rate of viewer loss over a smaller and smaller viewer base.

Does that mean, for example, that Ellen Wheeler is NOT the anti-Christ? Well, from a long-haul perspective, GL is not visibly declining at an appreciably faster rate than the other soaps. However, if you take a magnifying glass to that "yellow line" representing GL in the graph above, you see that GL was never really above the middle of the ratings pack, and tended to the bottom of the pack twenty years ago. Whoever oversaw THAT relative loss of ranking is much more responsible for where GL is today than Ellen Wheeler. On the other hand, if you peer at 2007-2008 with your magnifying glass, you'll see that the distance between bottom-ranked GL and the next highest soap has widened just a bit. GL has declined just a little faster than the other soaps. (From the beginning to the end of this year, GL lost 30% of its viewers, but Y&R lost about 25%). That doesn't actually seem like an impeachable offense.

Seriously, the overall market trends are driving this. I honestly believe Douglas Marland and Beverley McKinsey could return from the beyond, and GL ratings would still be where they are. The production model could have stayed the same or become more sumptuous, and still the ratings would be where they are. That is because demographic and social forces outside of soaps are causing all of this. In that sense, Wheeler's new production model is a bright strategy! By reducing the cost of producing a soap that would do no better if there were more investment, she at least keeps people employed a little longer.

Sorry for this long-winded post, but there are two final conclusions.

A. Follow the lines, and draw your conclusions. Those of us who love the soap genre MUST prepare to let go SOON. The trend is unmistakeable, universal, continuous, and is based in at least 30 years of history. If we want our soap fix, we'll have to find it online, or in primetime, or in books, or whatever. This TV business model for soaps is utterly unsustainable.

B. We have now reached the point where the ratings are so low, most soaps have needed to implement austerity plans. The cost-cuts are so deep that viewers are noticing (GL's production model, ATWT's minimal sets, ABC's 50% cuts, Days' 40% cuts and firing of its' signature stars).

It may be time to send a different, activist voice to the networks...which is to let our "loved ones" die. We understand that the business is no longer sustainable, and we'd much rather see our shows go out on a strong note, than dwindle into local-access-cable-amateur levels.

Even if active decisions to pull the plug do not happen, our soaps will be gone very-very soon. GL and ATWT are rumored to have 2009 contract extension possibilities (bringing them to 2010), but a September-2009 sayonara for GL is widely rumored. So, too, Days' contract renewal has been much publicized as going to September 2010, and Ken Corday seems very pessimistic about further renewals. It seems to be dependent on certain performance benchmarks that seem (given the figure above) unlikely to occur. If GL/ATWT/Days are all gone by 2010, that leaves us the ABC lineup and Y&R/B&B. With ABC is massive cost cutting (50% cuts and the cancellation of SuperSoapWeekend), these numbers strongly suggest that it hardly seems likely that they can lag much behind in cancellation.

Soap budget cuts: Salvation or sign of the end?

(Small non-sequitur: I have updated my cross-over list and GLBT list and image gallery to reflect some late-in-2008 additions)

So, this last week brought revelations that NBC required a 40% budget cut (from print edition of Soap Opera Digest) from Days of Our Lives for renewal, and ABC has recently asked for up to 50% budget cuts from cast and consultants. Guiding Light had much publicized budget cuts last year (e.g., 50% cuts in writing staff; hence, the new production model). I think this is not a sign of hope ("teamwork to save the show"), but the futile last gasp.

It seems that Y&R and B&B aren't going through such horrible cuts. Are they being "saved" by relative success on the foreign sales market? My sense is that the official story is that foreign sales are nice, but "chump change". They do not apparently offset the bulk of US production costs. At the same time, when I look at the two most popular international shows (Bell shows), I (and others) seem to see them spending MORE not less money. Their ratings (esp. B&B) are not high enough that they should be protected from this economic downturn. So maybe the foreign dollars do matter?

I also assume that the production houses may be willing to take less profit...as long as they break even...during a downturn like this. So, this leads me to conclude that ABC and NBC and P&G are not even breaking even on their soaps?

Could Y&R and B&B more quietly be asking for pay cuts from their actors? I wondered if this was what he was alluding to in a recent TVGuide.com interview...saying "I am happier with the storyline, I have to say. Much happier. I really mean that. I'm happy along those lines; along some other lines, no. But that's a different story."

I worry, actually, that when the pay cuts hit Y&R, we'll lose many of our starts. In recent years, Braeden, Scott, Woodland, Case, Morrow (others?) have all walked when contract negotiations fell apart. Heather Tom left the show when her pay cut (reduced guarantee; used less) happened.

I fear there are performers on Y&R who will just walk. Therefore...all the headlines that "Drake and Dee" are getting now....I expect them to repeat for "Eric and Melody" before the day is done. With that, the heart of these shows is expunged...and there seems little value in continuing to follow the empty shells that remain.

On the other hand, maybe the sheer scarcity of roles these days keeps some actors as a captive force on their shows. Is there another game in town?

I was actually in a situation in the last year where the economic downturn led to the issue of across-the-board paycuts being DISCUSSED. It's one thing to say theoretically, but when you suddenly have to live on less money...it's a hard pill to swallow. Especially if you have the same workload.

With that in mind, however, you're more apt to swallow this if there is no other game in town...and if your previous earnings have not made you independently wealthy.

So, unfortuntely, this becomes the classic "over the barrel" scenario: Do it, or have no job....and good luck finding another. That is essentially what Ken Corday said about his show: "Demonstrate teamwork or... goodbye".

For me, in the end, this all feels like we're closer to the end than I thought (for the genre).

We see this in many failing industries. The last step is "employee concessions". In some industries (like air or automobile) it CAN work because there is a hope for economic recovery.

Not for soaps. Sure, there may be more advertisers in the future, but the advertising game has changed. They value broadcast advertising less. AND nothing happening here will bring back soap viewers. They're gone forever.

I really thing the Days scenario describes where all of daytime is headed. These massive cuts will eke out another 18 months or so...and then the shows are gone. We've seen it at Days/NBC, we're seeing it at ABC now, and we saw it last year and before with CBS/P&G. Only the Bell soaps seem less publically to be going through this. (Years ago, Shaughnessy said they were doing significant cost cutting, but it was their goal for us not to notice it on screen. That began the era of use of fewer sets....but these days we seem to see MORE sets).

In that sense, I think all this cost cutting is heroic, but ultimately futile.

Remember, all soaps are going to end by 2016 anyway (insert wan semi-smile)