Thursday, November 20, 2008

GL is the new low

Earlier this week I reported that ATWT, with its 30% loss of viewers (between the maximum and minimum of the calendar year) was the biggest proportional loser of viewers in 2008.

Well, ratings released today at SON show GL hit a new household low rating of 1.4. With that, GL takes the "biggest loser" slot, with a loss of 31%.

I am not a regular viewer of GL, so I cannot comment on the show's creative state. Casual readers of the soap fan networks reveals that many long time viewers do not like GL's new production model, but more importantly, they feel the show has little narrative connection to its' history. Most fan favorites are gone or rarely seen, and some claim there are few intersecting stories with long-term payoff. I don't know if any of that is true.

I know that constant doom-filled signs for GL bring me no joy. Daytime's most venerable soap should not fade out like this. For a long time it has not been helped by less than 100% clearances on CBS and a wide array of timeslots (e.g, 10 am in New York).

At the point, with the clearly faster-rate-of-decline than other shows (ominous since the show was already at the bottom of the heap), it seems clear that fans have not accepted the new writing style or production model. While I applaud the experiment (I have in another post), if this were a drug trial, it would be time to say "stop--the experimental drug is killing the patient".

In contrast, two of the other bottom soaps (OLTL, AMC) have experienced much less proportional decline this year...and lately there are some hints of rebound

Now what, for GL?

There are signs that GL is trying some repair. Heralded returns of Grant Alexander, David Andrew McDonald might...just might...suggest that the show realizes it needs some anchor in popular legacy characters.

At the same time, the history of daytime soaps shows that when fans leave, they don't come back, and new viewers do not replace them (Jack Peyton axiom).

It really is like watching cancer ravage a loved one, and nothing can stop it. There comes a place when you pray for euthansia or merciful release. As a long-time viewer of another soap (Y&R), a piece of my soul -- really, I'm not being melodramatic -- will be lost forever when that show dies. But at some point I'd rather see that than what seems to be happening to GL now.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Is Y&R the big loser of 2008? I think it might be ATWT

Roger Newcomb wrote last Friday that Y&R lost the most viewers in 2008. In absolute terms, he is right. But a different cut of the numbers tells a different tale...and suggests (to me) that ATWT is in the greatest jeopardy.

This is really an archive of two posts I did at Soap Opera Network.

When it comes to ratings, I am all about "the trend".

So, the week-to-week ratings are less interesting to me, except insofar as they speak to the larger trend.

Below is the SON/Toups' ratings from the first week of the year (beginning 12/31/07) through the present, in summary form. I did this table on the HH ratings, but you get pretty similar results if you use the # of viewers. I realize the 18-39 female demo is the important one...but I'm more interested in the total eyeballs watching soaps.



I started thinking about this in reaction to Roger Newcomb's post on Friday, where (in the process of chiding SOD for their endless Victor covers) he said, in effect, Y&R lost the most viewers in the last year (800K), so why over-promote that show?

I replied at his blog and in mine, but I really wondered about the true declines for all soaps this year.

So, in the table above, I looked at the highest and lowest HH for each show. I take this as the much more useful index of decline, acknowledging that the minimum may be a point lower than the "usual low" for some shows. But still...

Suddenly, it gets hard to say "one show declined more than all others". It is true, in absolute viewers, Y&R lost the most, but if you look at % loss, the real losers are ATWT, GL and Days, with Y&R and GH in close behind.

(Now, Days and ATWT have both rebounded a little from their lowest ratings of the season...but in general I believe each show's minimum is a good reflection of where they are headed).

This is gasp-inducing. Pretty much 20-25% (1/5 to 1/4 of the audience!!!) losses across the board!! In that context, the relative preservation of AMC/OLTL is interesting...and makes one wonder if those shows have bottomed out, and have reached a stable minimum.

Now, elsewhere, I have said that the encouraging news from Soapnet, DVR viewing, and (I surmise...no numbers) online viewing suggest that these free-falls may not be quite as bad as they seem. Some of it may represent a movement away from broadcast.

But, with these numbers, our broadcasters and producers need to do a MUCH better job of following the people, and showing us where the people went. Because these numbers sure look like monotonic, unfettered decline!

With a quarter of the residual audience lost in a year, is it ANY WONDER that the networks have no interest in showing the Daytime Emmys anymore??

===

One more ratings-related post.

I thought it might be useful to look at the linear decline trajectories in the soaps this year. These are based on the maximum - minimum figures from my last post, averaged over the 45 weeks of season-to-date.

If you look at the raw ratings falls (first graph), it does look like Y&R experienced the most loss (and they did...in absolute terms).

The second graph may be more meaningful, because it puts all the shows in a common metric, and shows the decline from their 2008 high proportionally. If you can get over how appalling the overall slope of ALL the lines is, it sure makes you want to be AMC or OLTL smile.gif.


Friday, November 14, 2008

Is Roger Newcomb right? Are there too many Victor covers at SOD?

Roger Newcomb has been, appropriately, beating the drum about too many Victor covers at SOD.

His latest post on this is here, and says in part:

I hate to beat a dead horse with this, but with daytime ratings in the toilet and subscriptions down, seeing Digest on the newsstand might be the only thing that piques a lapsed fan's interested. And so those people are left with the impression that the only things happening on the soaps these days are the same things that have been going on for decades. How about trying to reel in some new fans or win some old fans back?

And in case someone at Digest hasn't noticed, no soap has lost more viewers than Y&R in the past year (nearly 800,000 viewers since last based based on the Nielsen Ratings for the week ending November 7). Despite the improvement in quality, the ratings are sinking fast so all this promotion isn't helping. Yet THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS has been the main cover or partial cover of Digest in 14 of the past 19 issues (that's 74%). And Eric Braeden has been on the cover seven times (with Victor menioned on an eighth). Digest, it's time to turn your attention to the rest of the soap world for a while.


I posted a comment there that said the following:


I'm with you...as a Y&R fan...except for that little bit of sophistry. "Y&R has lost the most viewers....promote other shows" (I paraphrase).

From the premise that there is Victor overkill (I agree...but it MUST be boosting sales, no?)

- Y&R remains that strongest show by most measures, so boosting it COULD serve to boost the industry "flagship". For example, on weeks where Y&R is down, B&B/ATWT/GL are often down too. So, saving Y&R might save the whole CBS lineup

- proportionally, all of CBS is in jeopardy, but Y&R is NOT the "biggest loser" when it comes to percentage loss. These numbers are taken from Toups' ratings archive at Soapoperanetwork:

SHOW, 11/03/08 rating, change since 11/07, 11/07 rating, % change since 07

Y&R, 4674000, -797000, 5471000, -15%
B&B, 3379000, -489000, 3868000, -13
GH, 2895000, -248000, 3143000, -8%
OLTL, 2693000, 34000, 2659000, +1%
DAYS, 2686000, 143000, 2543000, +6%
AMC, 2664000, 184000, 2480000, +7%
ATWT, 2551000, -419000, 2970000, -14%
GL, 2065000, -505000, 2570000, -20%

- From these numbers, GL is in "death trajectory", and GH is not statistically different from Y&R.

- If we're going to make these judgments based on numbers, we probably have to look at "volatility". Y&R is also more VOLATILE than the other shows, showing more week-to-week variation. So, not all weeks look this bad :-).

None of this takes away from your point! I agree that Y&R is getting too much cover time, and that SOD is failing to represent the genre as a whole!

But the argument for SOD to do differently should be conceptual...not on the basis of numbers. Y&R is the strongest show creatively, budgetarily, and in absolute numbers.

My guess is that SourceInterlink would reply that "these covers ARE based on numbers...what sells".

If that is true, how do we deal with it? Just like Soapnet can't afford to show soaps because the financials don't support it...apparently SOD has revealed that the financials now require Victor covers. If that is true...if they don't sell as many issues when other soaps are on the cover, what can we do about that??


Many fans are complaining about the bizarre developments at our soap venues:

- Soapnet is moving away from soaps

- SOD is moving to a Y&R-only format :)

I think we have to remember what is really happening here. The financials are driving these decisions. This isn't about "editor preference" or "bad editorial judgement" or whatever. I'll bet SOD doesn't even get to choose this: I'll bet SourceInterlink is mandating this.

The REAL lesson here is that we are going to have to let go of Soapnet and SOD. They're almost done.

Soaps are moving to the online world...one that is more democratic and less commercial. Roger Newcomb himself is a perfect example: His soap AND his blogsite are terrific...and they are totally internet! That is the future. That is how we get around Madison Avenue.

When Soapnet goes, online broadcasts of surviving soaps will be the new "re-purposing". I expect we'll lose at least a soap a year, maybe more, for the next few years. When SOD goes, Roger and the many wonderful online sites will fill the void...in a far more democratic way. This is simply emblematic of the larger future of broadcast, cable and print.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

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!

Friday, November 7, 2008

Change? Hope? Not for everyone...

This posting is soap-relevant, I promise! It just takes a minute to get there :).

The election of Barack Obama has been heralded in many corners, as a positive sign of the evolution of America. Tolerance of racial diversity. Tolerance for a progressive social agenda. Adoption of a more conciliatory international stance. A liberal agenda that understands the need to spread opportunity to more people. Alas, there is a fly in this happy ointment.

The passage of a number of "defense-of-marriage" constitutional amendments (commonly referred to as anti-gay-marriage votes), including in a state as progressive as California, suggests that there is much more evolution to occur. As I write this:

  • In California, Proposition 8 (Ban on Gay Marriage) received 5,424,916 "yes" votes (52%) and 4,932,086 "no" votes. Lest we think this somehow suggests California is universally conservative, the same percentage (52%) voted AGAINST abortion limits.
  • In Arizona, Proposition 102 (Ban on Gay Marriage) received 1,078,495 "yes" votes (56%) and 835,013 "no" votes (44%).
  • In Florida, Amendment 2 (Ban on Gay Marriage) received 4,755,789 "yes" votes (62%) and 2,913,740 "no" votes (38%).
So, I won't go off on a soapbox here, about how vile this is. I won't mention that is suggests civil rights remains a joke for gay and straight couples who want to commit to and love each other outside of marriage.

What I will mention is these election results were no "poll". This is not a random selection of individuals, some small panel that we're not sure is representative of some larger population. This IS the population. Adding in the results from the 2004 Federal election, gay marriage bans have been supported more often than not. What that tells us is that -- even in a year where voters were willing not to ban abortion and to elect a person of color -- majority opinion is STILL against LGBT men and women.

How does this relate to soaps?

Well, as I write this, ATWT's Nuke STILL has not had sex. The latest obstacle to their union concerns a school election in which Luke stuffed the ballot box. Noah "can't lie" to protect Luke...so it is clear the relationship is about to go through a rough patch. Objective viewers know this is just the latest in a string of unending obstacles for our boys. On the heels of a long dry spell before the men could start kissing, and Procter and Gamble phone poll about whether they SHOULD be on the show....it has been a long period of frustration for viewers who wanted an honest portrayal of gay male sexuality. Not lascivious, but honest.

Suddenly, in the bright light of these polls, P&G's conservatism doesn't seem quite so malevolent. Indeed...it seems almost wisely self-protective. If the MAJORITY of otherwise progressive men and women in America still can't stand the thought of same sex unions...they surely don't want to see it on their TV screens. In the same week, Grey's Anatomy abruptly scuttled a lesbian relationship. All My Children, mercifully, seems to be doing a decent job with Bianca's latest story and relationship.

For some time, a number of us have been angry at P&G for, apparently, timidity in the portrayal of Nuke as a couple. Suddenly, P&G seems awfully courageous to me. America, apparently, doesn't want to acknowledge, condone, or support the existence of committed same-sex unions.

In the end, I think I've stopped being angry. Now, I'm just sad. It's funny how, on the heels of the Obama victory, I end up feeling more like "no change, no hope". In that context, I'll take Nuke in any form I can get it. It's practically an act of sedition, apparently, that they are even allowed to exist.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Great Aunt Myrtle has passed

Fair warning: I'm a melodramatic, sappy kinda guy. Nowhere is that truer than this post. I apologize in advance.

Full disclosure: As a kid, I watched waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many soaps. From birth to age six, my paternal grandmother babysat me by day, and she was an ABC fan. Not just ABC, but I definitely remember a lot of ABC in my home. When other children in the neighborhood might go out to play, my grandmother had me take my afternoon "nap". My nap took place on the sofa of her living room, while she watched her soaps and game shows. My earliest memories of this seem to include One Life to Live...I have this distinct flashbulb memory of Tommy Lee Jones in prison...but that may have been manufactured memory by clips I have since seen.

We got the Buffalo affiliate, and they really didn't start showing One Life till the mid-to-late 70s, when OLTL went to 45 minutes and shared a timeslot with General Hospital. (Do I have that right?). The stalwarts, those afternoons, were All My Children and General Hospital. My memories for that era are hazy...I was pre-school age...but I have very specific scary images of AMC's Tara Martin, upset over some romantic problem with Phillip Brent as I recall, laying down in the snow and almost freezing to death. I have memories of my grandmother RAILING against GH's Audrey Hardy, who had had a baby, and was hiding it from the father. My grandmother was just heated over that deceptive woman. I remember "Howie and Jane" from GH, and I seem to recall the death (head hit on coffee table?) of a young girl (Brooke?), and everybody being sad for a day. My narrative recollection of the shows and their storylines really doesn't set in till later in the 70s.

During this hazy era, I remember AMC fairly well. In my flashbulbs, I remember Erica fighting with her mother. I remember Phoebe calling Mona all kinds of names (for stealing the heart of Phoebe's husband Charles). I remember Kitty and Nick, and then I remember Kitty dying, and then (in what I think might have been a first for soaps?) Kitty's identical twin Kelly coming to town. I remember Margo having a facelift, and pulling some deception on her husband Paul, and Margo having a drug using mess of a daughter named Claudette, and on and on. I bet if I ever read those storylines in written summaries, it would all come back to me.

From this era, when we still had black and white TV (we didn't get our first color TV till about 1976, as I recall, a little Toshiba), I recall Myrtle Lum Fargate. As I recall her, she was initially hired by Phoebe...maybe as a scam mother to Kitty or Kelly? Anyway, what I firmly remember is that she was a character! Loud, boisterous...different from anything else on that show. She was far from young....and she was far from a sweet grandmother. I seem to recall pretty quickly she developed a fondness for Kitty, and was regretting her deceptiveness, and eventually she became a real "mama" to Kitty. I remember being so sad when Kitty died, and glad when Kelly appeared.

My memories of Myrtle come into firmer resolution later in the 70s and early 80s, after Lenny Wlasika (that's Langley Wallingford, to you!) appeared. The astute, educated professor was really a con man. His secret was revealed when ex-"carney" Myrtle spotted him...and remembered their larcenous past.

What fun! Myrtle's blackmail of Langley, getting him to do the right things, seems to have extended for years! Myrtle was a crackling life force, and the screen lit up whenever she got up to her maneuvers.

Now, that life force is gone, at least in corporeal form. Eileen Herlie has passed on.

I am absolutely a lapsed AMC viewer. I really haven't watched AMC with any regularity since at least 1983 or 1985. I have monitored from afar, but for the most part, the show never really recaptured my interest. As my life got busier and busier, my soap addiction narrowed down to healthier and healthier subset (now it is Y&R and--with disdain these days--an occasional B&B), and AMC was never compelling enough to grab me.

Let me digress for a second...but it is relevant. If you are like me, your parents at some point sold the house you grew up in. The house might still be there, but the parents aren't. Still, when you get back to your hometown, maybe you're compelled to drive past the old homestead. I am. Or maybe you lived in a town once, and moved away, but have occasion to drive past your old apartment once in a while. Anyway, if you're like me...it is not a satisfying experience. The exterior changes. The people and surrounds are different. You can't really go inside anymore. The physical place deviates more and more from how you remember it. And one day you realize that the portion of that place that is important to you lives in your mind and memories. The physical place is irrelevant, and in fact kind of interferes with the memories. If you're like me, your emotional attachment is to the way things were...not the way they are.

Well, maybe you see where I am going. AMC now is like a house I grew up in, but that I haven't lived in for 25 years. The house is no longer mine. So, I no longer even really want to live there. I've moved on.

I might feel differently if the house--AMC--had much semblance of how it used to be. But most of my touchstones--Ruth (Mary Fickett), Phil, Tara, Chuck, Phoebe, Charles, Linc, Kitty, Kelly, Mona, Erica (she's still there!)...and later Palmer (barely there), Monique, Nina, Cliff, Sybil, Greg, Jenny, Jesse and Angie (back!), Tad (well, I guess he's still there), Marion, Liza--are gone. Indeed, there has been SO much attrition from my era that going back is almost a little like visiting a cemetary...it serves as a palpable reminder of what I once had, and what no longer exists...and so rather than the few remaining veterans capturing me, they serve more as sepulchral reminders of death and loss. Not really fun.

Well, now with the passing of Myrtle, my ancestral home is even more different, less inviting. The crypt of my memories has yet another member.

This sounds like a selfish kind of mourning...and it is. It is all about my personal connection to what AMC used to be, and my sadness to have lost it. I mourn not only Ms. Herlie, and Myrtle, and all the characters of my youth...I also mourn what daytime used to be. When I was a child, I distinctly remember being MOST captivated, of all the stories, by loud drunken Phoebe and wooden stoic Charles and poor hapless Mona. Here you had a trio of sextagenarians in a bona fide (if chaste) love triangle, and it was a rip-snorting blast! Such fun to watch. Ruth Warrick and Eileen Herlie burned up the screen whenever they were on together, sparring, trading insults. It was grand, grand entertainment.

That day shall never come again. These weren't "veterans". They were HIRED as "old people", but played on the front burner! Now, soaps no longer play their vets...and they surely don't hire "old people".

It is our loss.

We shall never enjoy the sublime and unique entertainments of a woman like Eileen Herlie on daytime again.

I have written here, and elsewhere, that Y&R is really the only soap to still own my loyalty. Part of the reason is that that is a home I never left. I have watched pretty continuously since the show's debut. But, in addition, that is a home--a dramatic canvas--that still bears a strong similarity to the canvas I enjoyed 25 years ago. Same actors, same characters, same sets, same music, even some of the same historical threads. With every day that passes, I realize what a gift this continuity is...and that this, too, shall never be again.

I shall miss Eileen Herlie. I wish her great peace in her transition. Yet, in a different sense, I have this gift so beautiful it gives me goosebumps as I type this. Because Myrtle Lum Fargate shall live on for as long as I do. I will always hear that loud, deep, throaty voice and that lilting accent. I shall always remember Kitty and Kelly calling her mama. I shall always delight in her impish manipulation of Lenny/Langley. Those things truly, truly shall endure for me, and make me smile every time I think of them. For this gift, I thank you Ms. Herlie, I thank you Ms. Nixon, I thank you ABC.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

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.