Soapnet and SyFy and Guiding Light

In this entry, I want to briefly acknowledge the reality that cable networks, including Soapnet are fickle things. They have to constantly evolve to survive. With that being the case, there is little reason to believe that Soapnet is going to be a viable home for the future of daytime--certainly not Guiding Light. Personally, I think P&G/Telenext has the exciting -- and risky -- opportunity to create its own new exclusive-content online distribution channels. These channels will connect them directly with their intended ad recipients. If P&G shows leadership here, they may in fact have figured out a way to be the leaders for the third major soap evolution (TV to online), just as they blazed the trail from radio to TV in the 1950s.

Here's how I think:

a. Soapnet continues to evolve, and it has to to stay alive. As an advertiser- and subscriber-supported network, they have to run the stuff that gets the coveted eyeballs (18-49 women) and makes money.

b. All cable networks seem to do this. The template for cable network evolution is all over the board...Nick at Nite, TVLand, MTV, GSN, Bravo, A&E, TruTV. Every one of these networks started with one identity and programming concept, but has now become somthing very different. Some have had wholesale identity shifts (TruTv which started as CourtTV), others have tweaked their program mix away from what was their core brand (MTV now barely plays music; GSN has minimized the classic game shows; AMC has banging original shows and newer movies...not the black and white commercial free classics they started with).

So it is with Soapnet. Another World is gone. Ryan's Hope is stuck in a perpetual loop at 4 am. Weekend marathons of most soaps are gone. Original soap-related programming (Soap Talk, Soapcenter, Soapography, One Day With, Night Shift) is gone.

Many feel cheated by the brand evolution, but it is very clear to me that it is a survival strategy.

Why should we hate these companies for doing what they need to to make money?

SyFy is one of the most glaring recent examples. Their recent evolution from the network for Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who into the network for ... something really different ... simply shows that being the niche sci-fi channel couldn't work for them anymore.

Let me say, though, that while I'm kind of blase about these brand switches, they INFURIATE a lot of my fellow viewers. With regard to Soapnet, specifically, viewers feel betrayed. "We called our cable provider to put Soapnet on so we could watch Another World, and then they took it away!" or "Brian Frons hates soaps, so he minimizes their presence on his network".

Honestly I do not believe it is anything that malevolent--or specific to soaps.. I just think that these cable networks are so fragile and marginal that they have to quickly evolve or die. Why would we expect less of a soap network? It is clear that this is a survival strategy that has affected most of the viable networks out there. Anyone remember "Outdoor Living Network?" Oh yeah...they're called VS now. Where is the Nashville Network? Oh yeah...that's Spike.

3. Soapnet, though, may be kind of screwed. Why? Because despite their attempts to revise their brand, their big numbers still come from same day primetime reruns of daytime of soaps. What to?? Your big numbers come from the "granny shows". You're screwed!

That suggests to me that Soapnet may not fully evolve until it dumps the daytime shows and rebrands (Reality-and-Celebrity-net).

4. What about soaps, then?

The rebranding of Soapnet actually may portend hope for soaps -- but not on TV. Soapnet itself seems to be moving into the online distribution world...and its inhospitable (to soaps) broadcast platform may help more quickly move soaps onto the internets. It is there -- if anywhere -- that I think survival can be found. (Once we figure out how to properly monetize and protect these streams)

For example the network just recently acquired online streaming rights for Days of our Lives...which is interesting, because their website currently doesn't stream shows...and DOOL has been uniquely available via I-tunes.

Maybe the online portal -- where infrastructure costs are much lower -- will be the place for daytime soaps and classic soaps. That fits in well with the rapid emergence of an on-demand on-line television culture (Hulu, Fancast, TV.com, etc). Indeed, perhaps Soapnet should strive to become the exclusive online distributor of soaps (all other services have to license content through them...and use their advertisers).

5. What does this have to do with Guiding Light?

Well, Brian Cahill of TeleNext is talking about finding new homes for his show.

I would not urge him to talk to Soapnet. Not only does that network not have real-estate for the P&G shows, but history shows they are not loyal to original programming (few last more than a season). And the network clearly wants to get One Tree Hill/Gilmore Girl viewers and Lifetime Movie women...who seem to be a little different (younger?) than soap viewers.

Indeed, I think P&G should just bite the bullet and create its own online distribution channel. They have already been going great guns to create online niches that deliver content to the viewers they seek to advertise too.

"If you build it, they will come". P&G should just continue to control GL, and use it as the experimental vehicle to build a new "soaps" channel. GL continues in that way to be the leader (just as it moved from radio over 50 years ago, now it can be the first mover to the internet). Initially, this GL might be a loss leader...but eventually it could build an intriguing new online brand that might represent the future of soaps.

6. Is this pie in the sky?

On April 1, I would have said there was no hope for GL to continue to exist. Now, I'm starting to get the sense that P&G/Telenext might be serious about trying to do something to at least explore whether the brand can be revitalized and made more relevant off of CBS.

If so, I want to remind P&G: A big part of your GL problem was that you could not fully control the creative product (thanks to corporate overseers) or the distribution (thanks to recalcitrant affiliates that either refused to air the show, or put it on at goofy times). I urge P&G to retain control of the content during this next evolution, and to control the channel. It is from that control (let's call it "protection") that I could imagine that a 'safe harbor' for the evolution of daytime might actually emerge.

What J. Bernard Jones Started (Part 3)

Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. The original piece that served as inspiration is here.

=========

Part 3. Hope? Despair? Both?

Let me start with full disclosure. I am ardent soap fan. In my life, I have been a regular viewer of Ryan's Hope, Loving, All My Children, One Life to Live, General Hospital, Days of Our Lives (briefly), Search for Tomorrow (briefly), Bold and the Beautiful, and the Young and the Restless. Only the last two are still on my DVR (for a lot of reasons) and have really had my attention since the mid-late 1980s, but I have been ridiculously smitten with this genre since I remember watching TV.

In my dream world, Soapnet would show daytime programs all day long, including a healthy dose of classics. In my dream world, SOD or SOW would be more like "Vanity Fair"--deep, probing, long, analytical articles with perspective. (They would also have people in addition to Eric Braeden on the cover). In my dream world, too, Phoebe Tyler and Myrtle Fargate would both still be alive and sparring over Langley Wallingford. But sometimes, it is more adaptive to let go, and acknowledge reality.

I have been pretty consistent in the last little while, though, about my assumption that, on the current course (important caveat), daytime drama will soon end. I base that assumption (like many of us) on the exponentially shrinking numbers, coupled with the concomitant budget cuts and production decisions that then lead to impoverished content. This latter element, I believe, squanders the goodwill of long-time fans for shows that have been a long part of their lives.

I wish it were not so! In my last post, I tried (indirectly) to explain why it is so important to me to be clear-eyed about this genre. Anticipatory socialization. I have to get ready for the end. It is a defensive posture. Realizing that makes me seem like a Revelations-Armageddon fundamentalist, I apologize....but I really do fear for a Soaps Apocalypse.

=========

So, one of the themes in Jones' blog post, if I may again paraphrase (badly) is that -- judged against what is happening across the broadcast networks (this week's NBC Jay Leno announcement being a perfect example), things may not be that bad for the soaps.

I don't agree. (I wish I did).

It used to be that daytime was profitable enough that it actually helped to subsidize primetime. One could imagine that these days, maybe turnabout would be fair play. The problem is that primetime is bankrupt. There is no money.

In industries throughout America, there are no longer sufficient reserves to "nurture" fledgling or foundering divisions. It is, sadly, time to cut out what can no longer be supported.

So, as the networks look at what costs to shed, they must remove unprofitable albatrosses. If the current economic climate--coupled with shrinking viewership--continue, there is simply no way to PAY for daytime. The hatchet-people will look at these five-day-a-week niche shows and say "uh uh...we can do talk shows".

Because I believe the networks are trying to get out of the broadcast business (by which I mean: abandon the local affiliates, and become cable-only outlets with reduced schedules, from which they retain a higher proportion of profits, and receive subsidization from cable licensing fees), there is a need for a smaller, cheaper footprint.

If you accept my premise that there is no money, there is actually a fate worse than cancellation. It is disembowelling these shows--cutting casts, cutting sets, cutting pay (thereby killing morale). We actually see this latter process happening right now...and it ain't pretty.

That said, I truly am hopeful and optimistic in the long run.

==========

First, I think the Leno experiment really should beget a "Young and Restless" experiment. What I would do...and commit to for a 24-month period...is to run the first-run Y&R episode on CBS every night at the start of primetime (e.g., 8 pm on the east coast). I would continue to broadcast it the next day at 11 am or 12:30 pm or whatever it is in the local market. But the premiere of each episode would be in primetime.

As I have blogged elsewhere, this and similar timeslots have been effective for soaps in other countries. It would have NO incremental cost for CBS. It could ONLY increase both live-views (good for ad dollars) and total viewership for Y&R. It would be a version of the Leno-move.

Of course, I know this will never happen...mostly because of the misogyny and anti-daytime stance of a lot of primetime programmers. They want "hip, edgy, youth-skewing". Okay. Because that is working so well for them....

==========

So, let's take the more apocalyptic view. Every single daytime soap is dead by 2016.

I will mourn, to be sure.

But I think the serial format itself is fairly secure. It goes through peaks (Dallas, Dynasty, 90210 the first, the early seasons of Lost, Heroes, and 24) and it goes through valleys (the latter seasons of all of the above shows). It could be argued that HBO and Showtime's biggest successes have been with dramas with a serial structure. Even the big cable critical hits these days (say Mad Men, Breaking Bad) are dramatic serials.

They are also reinventions. Most of the shows I have mentioned above are not really melodramas, and they're not really female-focused. But that is okay. Those are thematic emphases that worked for the housewives of the 1950s and 1960s...but that entity really doesn't exist in large measure anymore.

The reinvention of the serial as shorter, more limited, more gender-neutral...this simply reflects adaptation ('evolution') to the modern audience. Some of those shows are just terrific. And, by not having 70-year lifespans, they dazzle with "bright shining moments", and then we move on. The Sopranos or Deadwood or Six Feet Under (or, now, True Blood) will linger for many of us as a time of greatness, in part because they knew when to leave the stage. Even the still-marvellous ER...which has had a looooooong run...manages to leave with dignity intact...still seeming like a fairly strong version of itself.

=========

But what about Erica and Marlena and Luke and Laura and Victor and Nikki and Kim and Bob and all these beautiful, iconic "people" with whom we shared every day for so many years?

Well, beyond saying goodbye, it sure would be nice to say goodbye with our heads up...with planned endings on a high note. There is a seedling of hope that life could continue for some of them.

(For me, Soapnet's Night Shift II was just the most beautiful little gem. I wish it had rated better. I'd love to see that used on the broadcast networks, and serve as the model for the next generation of our daytime soaps).

========

The dramatic serial will live on, clearly, well past all of us. The adaptive response from all of us, in my opinion, is to (a) celebrate the past, (b) treasure what we still have, and focus on the positives of our beloved genre in its twilight years, and (c) enthusiastically embrace the evolution. Primetime serials, re-inventions of daytime shows as shorter-arc telenovelas, internet soaps....so much hope! Sometimes, you need to clear the forest to restore it to health.

Did I say no hope? Scratch that...

While we sit here and lament the demise of soaps, CBS' Y&R is kicking ASS. Viewership approaches the classic days of yore...just in new ways.

1. Broadcast Neilsen ratings are at an all time low for Y&R on CBS. Last week's average household rating was an all-time low of 3.4. Surely I'm delusional? Not really.

2. Soapnet, in October, reported an all-time high. This ends up adding about 15% to the total number of Y&R viewers.

3. Sara Bibel says seven-day DVR plays of Y&R add almost 25% to Y&R's audience.

4. We don't know how many people are watching the many legal online streams of Y&R, but it must be a lot. Unknown numbers at cbs.com, hulu, fancast, msn tv, legal Youtube...unknown, BUT think of this: EVERY WEEK, on their home page, CBS lists Y&R as one of their "most popular" streamed shows (no other soaps)

I have been as noisy as the rest of us about the "decline of soaps" and "the end is near" and all that jazz. But it is easy to look at these broadcast Neilsen trends and think all is lost. But when you ADD IN the numbers from these different venues, you suddenly realize that it is not out of the question that Y&R reaches 8-10 million people a day.

8-10 MILLION (and that could be an underestimate, since I have no clue what the online numbers are...that 8-10 million number could come from just Soapnet + delayed DVR views)!

A DAY!

What it says (and I can't speak to the rest of the daytime lineup) is that Y&R is still pulling numbers that aren't so far off from its' glory days!

It also says that if the chief revenue model still relies on same-day ad rates on CBS broadcast...well, then we're all f*cked.

If almost half your viewers are watching your show in other ways....they need to count...and you need to get the revenues from those other venues.

For me, meanwhile, I'm retreating from the doom and gloom a bit. These combined Y&R numbers are AMAZING...and they rival some of primetime viewership. The future is HERE. The audience is still HERE. Let's catch up with the business model!

Applauding the experiments

It has become quite conventional to deride and complain about ... well ...everything on soaps. For me, though, this past year has also been a time of optimism and hope. The powers in charge are NOT giving up. Indeed, they are doing the opposite. They are still experimenting, and seeking new ways of making soaps viable in the modern era. I think this is laudable. Here, I want to briefly give thanks for some of the many innovations from this year...and the past...that I think we could look at as "glass half full".

Soapnet still broadcasts soaps in primetime



Many have decried the fact that cheap reality shows and old reruns (90210!) and bad TV movies proliferate at the modern Soapnet. Gone are classic soaps (Port Charles doesn't count, and is anyone waking up at 5 am to see Ryan's Hope?). Reduced are weekend marathons.

But here's the thing: From 7 pm - midnight, PRIMETIME, we still see same day soaps. These are timeslots that help soaps flourish in many other countries in the world. Soapnet has remained committed to them.

We cannot fault the network for the fact that soaps have proven, in the main, unprofitable. It is to their credit that they are being flexible, adapting the brand to bring eyeballs to the network (and stay solvent). Indeed, if they succeed, their promotions may bring eyeballs back to the "mothership", the daytime brand. I do not understand all this Soapnet anger. It seems people WANT the network to be unprofitable.

Night Shift



I haven't been a regular GH viewer since the mid 1980s. But here I am...now struggling to stay awake every Tuesday at 11 pm. Night Shift is a revelation. Emotional stories, intergenerational canvas, veterans, guest stars with high relevance to a daytime audience (Kathleen Noone!). Is it perfect? No. But it is a much more watchable GH than the "love in wartime" carnage on in the daytime.

I personally think Night Shift is one of the paths to the future. Our soaps won't survive...not daily...not in daytime. If we can hold on to their core, shrink them down, make them less frequent, get them in primetime (when the audience is home)...some remnants may survive. Bravo to Lisa Hesser, Sri Rao and team for showing us that it can be done.

Promotion off network and out of the daypart

Sudden Impact, Y&R's August umbrella story, had boffo ratings. The story was good enough (and killed off characters/stories the viewers hated), but the promotion is what did it! CBS spent serious coin to run primetime ads on E! and their own network. I saw banner ads for the show everywhere. (In the same time frame, ATWT bought "Perez Hilton" ad space for a day). It worked! Hype, well placed, backed up by an exciting story...it worked.

Thus, I'm kind of sad that CBS hasn't kept at it a little while, to rebuild the brand.



It is a marked contrast to the failure of the 'Out of the Ashes' promotion during LML's Y&R era. That failed, I think, because it relied heavily on print (e.g., TV Guide), and was not backed up with a story most viewers wanted to see. Indeed, numbers were LOWER during that story.
Bravo too to ABC, for including soap stars in the Fall network promos, and for planning an expensive promotion aimed at luring back lapsed viewers.

Indeed, even CBS and NBC announced that they would be placing soap stars on primetime shows...to attract lapsed eyeballs. Bravo! Maybe they finally realize that investing back into the soap brand might have some benefits.

Peapack, NJ and the new production model at GL

Let's face it...Canadian TV Guide has all but told us this: GL is in its' final months. But, rather than view that as failure, I think GL got 12 months more than it would have otherwise.
They are going down TRYING. They cheapened the production costs (and some of it looks pretty dang good). They tried to build a new audience. Sadly, it is a failure (GL experienced the largest and most consistent declines during 2008...something the last-ranked show could scarcely afford to do). But I view it akin to someone dying in a motor vehicle crash donating their organs to science. The show was dying, so they used it to explore/experiment with new ways of making soaps.

The experiment was doomed to fail...it should have been done with a NEW soap. You can't dress a 70 year old lady in a teenage tart's clothes and hope that people will find her young and sexy. She is STILL 70! But they tried! They bought a year! They refined a production model! Hopefully, when CBS cancels the show, they will use what they learned to make a new soap, for new audiences, using the best of GL's waning days.

A three-day work week



EP Chris Goutman says the audience doesn't have patience for "this" show more than 3 days a week. I think he is right. I think most people don't have time for a 5-day a week daytime habit.
I think Night Shift is the model. (Wasn't Peyton Place on 2-3 days a week in primetime?). I think CBS should explore Chris' model. Take the current ATWT down to 3 days a week. Use the other two days to do all or some of the following:

- classic reruns
- classic reruns packaged as weekly clip shows ("Let's look at the best of Lucinda's marriage to John Dixon")
- Night-Shift style spinoffs that run, in the daypart, once a week. This latter would be a way to explore building the new brand. The spinoff could be truly continuing, or it could be more 13-week telenovela style. If the latter, it means that new ATWT "spinoffs" could be explored, once a week, every 13 weeks or so. Using the ATWT crew and sets (that is working less due to the reduced ATWT main schedule), it ensures that a fairly low incremental-cost product is produced, and few lose their jobs.

Change is not the enemy. Experimentation proves that you're not willing to let the genre go.

Soapnet's unwinnable battle: Part II

And another thing :-)...

As I write this, I am reading "Worlds Without End", the museum book on the history of soap operas.

Right now I'm reading James Thurber's 1940s New Yorker articles about radio soaps.

In one of his articles, he talks about the cliches that had already come to proliferate. Among them:

- sudden (often temporary) blindness
- sudden (often temporary) paralysis
- sudden (usually temporary) amnesia
- he also talked about the archetypes of the "noble woman" (who was the problem solver), and the "troubled women" who gravitated to her tohelp dealing with life dilemmas

- of course, there were other form cliches (introductory recaps, questions like "Will Polly find true happiness?", organ music), some of which persist or have been re-implemented

Soapy at soaphunks.net has created a list of 100 of these:

http://soaphunks.net/cliches.php

(He also has the 100 "best moments", and I like a lot of them:

http://soaphunks.net/100moments.php)

And herein lies, I think, the other part of the doomsday scenario.

Traditional soap is PLAYED. It is mired in cliche. This has earned the form derision FROM THE BEGINNING. It has made the genre the source of countless lampoons ("As the Stomach Turns").

But, when soaps try to innovate and modify the genre--from Gloria Monty at GH to LML at Y&R--fans raise hue and cry. To this day, articulate people say Monty helped destroy daytime by introducing "filmic" elements. And legions of stalwart Y&R fans, the show that had maintained the most loyal fan base (in absolute numbers) are now abandoning the show in droves, as it trends (more rapidly than the rest of the genre) to a 3.5 or 3.0 household rating.

Rock meet hard place.

ATWT tries to add a beautiful story of coming out. The American Family Institute (or whatever it is called) and its ilk start foaming at the mouth. So, suddenly we see the story cast as a "classic" soap tale with lots of obstacles and no kissing. (I'm simplifying). The result: The viewers "on the right" hate it because it shows open-mouthed homosexuals. The viewers "on the left" hate it because it does not show reality and it seems timid. NO ONE IS HAPPY. The young-male ratings bump that ATWT got from their Nuke romance is rapidly attriting.

I honestly think this daytime form, which I love, has reached the end of its adaptive capacity in the current environment. A powerful set of forces is poised to halt its evolution...and unfortunately the rule of the jungle is "evolve or die". (Did I just characterize myself as a lefty, anti-creationist by saying that?).

The bravest show right now, in terms of evolution, is GL. Although I believe attempts to say that it is in "swan dive" are false (its decline is no faster than others), absent a small uptick in the youngest viewers, I see no evidence that the evolution is succeeding. The only thing that was accomplished, I suspect, is cost savings sufficient to buy the show another year.

I do believe ABC is being brave in its attempts to broaden the base (a nighttime cable network), creating new content to draw new audiences (GH Night Shift), and including modern production values (like CGI--even filmlook, though I hate that). But watch the ratings and the demos.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

The genre is played out.

Soapnet's unwinnable battle: Part I

At the 2008 Daytime Emmy Awards, ABC heavily promoted the debut episode of the failed Canadian primetime soap MVP. The show would be a new primetime "jewel" for the Disney sister channel, Soapnet. Construed as a hockey-players-wives tale, many viewers decried that it was further evidence that the network, and its' runner (Brian Frons) were out of touch with what soap viewers wanted.

To be clear, Soapnet is a very different network in 2008 than it was when it debuted. The network started with "classic soaps" (notably Another World), which it eventually canceled due to near-zero ratings (after moving it to the wee hours of the day). The network had a lot of original content about soaps and stars (SoapCenter, Soapography, Soap Talk, One Day With, They Started on Soaps)...but all of this content eventually went away. It was replaced with rebroadcasts of failed, youth-oriented soaps (One Tree Hill), and new celeb-reality offerings (The Fashionista Diaries, Relative Madness). A "Sunday Night Movie", having nothing to do with soaps, was introduced. In the process, Frons tried to expand the meaning of "soap" to include all the drama that occurred in the world--especially with celebrities like Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan. In other words, the network wanted to include gossip and "reality" as part of its imprimatur.

Indeed, the soapnet.com website was rebranded as a celebrity/fashion site, with little soap content.

Now, the lifelong soap fan in me decries this. I feel violated. Viewers of classic soaps lobbied to get Soapnet on their cable systems...and now the network is...well...not very related to soaps.

But I can forgive this when I wear my business/analyst hat.

Well, I actually watched MVP. It is what it is....it is NOT a show I loved, but it was okay. Fair disclaimer; I am an ex-patriate Canadian, I was looking forward to seeing a CBC production, and this wa pretty much what I expected. All the promos have been about abs and sex and...well...that's largely what we got.

As I understand it, though, there IS a fair contingent that likes and misses that kind of show. Let me also say that, in broad strokes, I accept this as a "primetime soap"...and therefore within the appropriate scope of Soapnet.

Alright, with all those disclaimers, here is why I'm not jumping on the "bash Frons" bandwagon:

1. EVERY SINGLE nostalgia network is rebranding and changing. TVLand now show programs from the 90s. Game Show Network is now GSN and is featuring many new shows. American Movie Classics is now AMC...commercialized, colorized, recent content. VH1 is now Celebreality.

The near universal move away from nostalgia programming would suggest that "classic" shows bring neither the numbers NOR the "coveted demographic" if 18-49 year olds.

Thus, in the current market, I do not see that classic soaps can be economically or demographically viable.

2. It goes without saying that soap ratings are in free fall. The steady downward trend in both # of viewers and in household ratings for the soaps began almost at the beginning of the (televised) genre, and where we are today is a straight linear function. So, if you extrapolate it out, all shows will reach a 1.0 rating (which seems to be the point of unsustainability and cancellation) between 2010 and 2016.

Since the 'same day' soaps are the bread and butter of Soapnet, THEY HAVE A PROBLEM. They have an eroding audience that DOES NOT care about watching their soaps in primetime any more than in daytime.

This isn't just domestic. Internationally, countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Australia are ditching their US soaps. Often, the shows migrate to another network (sometimes a specialized cable service), only to do more poorly in their new home than in the old home. Recent attempts to bring General Hospital to France led to cancellation in weeks. Young and Restless also only last weeks during the recent attempt to bring it back to German airwaves. The Bold and the Beautiful was announced as number one international daytime soap this week, with 25 million viewers. But the REAL story is that that number was between 35-50 million (I don't have the ACTUAL figure in hand, I'm sorry) about a decade ago.

INTERNATIONALLY this is a dying genre...and so Soapnet has a REAL problem. Its CORE is a terminal patient.

3. Showing classic soaps is tricky...very tricky. MOST people will not watch unless they had a history with it.

Take Another World. My era with that--the one I would LOVE to rewatch--is from the early/mid 1980s. Soapnet started after that point. I wanted my Catlin and Sally and brand-new-Jake and introduction-of-Ellen-wheeler and so forth. I tried to watch anyway, but it just didn't grab me (just as it never did during its original run).

Even a show I'm die-hard about, Young and Restless...the nostalgia doesn't really call me. When SoapCity let me pay for old episodes, I did pay for the debut episode. I found it slow and amateurish. I was not motivated to watch more. Now, Sony's "mini-sode" network shows HIGHLIGHTS from the past. There are some really juicy moments there...but I have still only watched a few minutes here or there.

Nostalgia is, in the main, not a draw for many people.

4. A related point is that these are CANCELLED soaps. So figuring out what period to program is tricky. Assume people only want to watch the era that they ORIGINALLY watched. (I realize that may not be true, but I think it is). If you go back too far, you have larger bodies of viewers, but they are OLD. (Old > 49). The networks have NO interest in that. In the case of AW, if Soapnet had programmed the Harding Lemay era...that would have been creatively the best...and the era where the show was number one...but all it would have drawn in were viewers in their sixties and fifties. Madison Avenue (short sightedly) sees ZERO value in that.

But, if you come too close to the present, almost all of these shows were neither at their creative nor viewership zeniths. AW in the 90s, for example, was already well on its' cancellation trajectory (you call it "sick soap syndrome")...so THAT is not the way to build a healthy Soapnet.

==

In the context of all this (nostalgia brands failing, global viewership hemmorhage, the fact that the shows' creative and ratings heights were too far back to draw in desirable demographics), I see no way to win.

I UNDERSTAND why Frons is trying to rebrand the meaning of soaps. I say "more power to him"...because, honestly, there is no future in the narrow definition of soaps (daytime, serial drama).

In that sense, I encourage MVP and even (I am shuddering as I say this) "Relative Madness". It is all experimental. But it is time for radical experiments...because the scent of death is around the corner.

My prediction is that by 2010, Soapnet will have a new name, and it will no longer play even the ABC same-day soaps. That is actually an essential step for ABC to decide that AMC/OLTL are not viable and cancel them by 2012, with GH following in 2013. (You read it here!).

By the way, by this math, I think Days will be gone in 2010, GL in 2011, ATWT in 2012, B&B in 2014, and Y&R in 2016.

So, I give Frons full license to find a NEW audience. I think that audience, sadly, has zero interest in anything we might call a "soap".