Guiding Light Discussion Group

Topic: Could Have Anything Really Saved Guiding Light From Cancellation?

If P&G wanted GL (& any of their other soaps) to be in production they would be.  There is a reason why they have only one show still in production, however short term that may be--it is how THEY want it.  If P&G wanted to they could create their own network for their own soaps (they have over 20 titles & could always create more if they so desired) & have product placement all over the place for their own stuff, if they so desired.  But they don't.  They lack the basic interest & passion in the genre & see it as dead.  They conveniently forget that they've killed it & keep insisting that soaps are dying on the vine because they have 'run their course' and insist that 'this is a natural death' when nothing could be further from the truth!  There has been nothing natural about the death of soaps over the last couple of decades.  There are still lots of stories to tell, even though P&G has said that there aren't.  There are always stories for soaps to tell about flawed characters, their challenges & overcoming them.

The audience, for the most part, didn't leave soaps, soaps left the audience.  Today's Suits may have MBAs but they aren't storytellers with a passion for soap operas.  They also don't see any advantage in making them succeed, only fail.  As long as that is their mindset, then soaps WILL fail.

There IS an audience out here, a broad audience and a strong foundation for the genre of soaps.  There are also a wide variety of types of soaps.  Not every type would appeal to that whole audience.  I love soaps, but was never a fan of Dark Shadows or Passions--but at least they stuck to the vision of their creators.  Not everyone wants to see a soap revolving around fashion (B&B) or a hospital (GH).  I always loved soaps that knew their audience & had a focus.  I loved Search For Tomorrow, Edge Of Night, etc.  PC had great potential, until they went Vampire & Flying Monkey on the audience--losing their original vision.

Not everyone wants to watch infomercials, game shows, talk shows or 'informational shows' all day--cheap as they may be to produce.

Replies: (list all replies)

Just so you have your facts right, you must be corrected. CBS cancelled GL, not P&G. P&G tried shopping it around to other networks. CBS' Les Moonves was behind pulling the plug on GL.

Why do you always harp on P&G 20 soap titles? P&G tried a soap channel on the internet and it failed miserably. Some episodes of Texas were watched by a whopping 12 people. Wow. You can't believe that there is an audience chomping at the bit to watch Lovers and Friends and For Richer, For Poorer? P&G knows a soap channel would be a disaster. There is NOT an audience out there for these shows. Accept it.

I'm not talking about a soap channel online. I'm talking about a viable soap network on cable or some other venue. Soaps ARE viable. While CBS may have 'cancelled' GL, they wouldn't have if P&G wasn't agreeable to it. P&G is who made the show unwatchable. I 'harp' on P&G's library of titles because it is extensive--over 20 shows in that libarary! I've never understood why so many fail to see that CBS had a vested interest in waiting until P&G was onboard w/cancellation before it was done. It has always been done that way--uniquely w/P&G soaps because they are also the biggest source of ad revenue for the networks--not just CBS & not just for daytime. Also, as I've said before, as P&G goes, so go the smaller advertisers. This isn't something that I've made up. One of the things that I was told during the fight to save AW, a fight that lasted over 6 yrs, was that EVERY network that has had P&G soaps has waited until P&G gave the green light to cancel ANY of their shows. It doesn't happen w/other soaps because no other soap ownership has the Corp. power that P&G does--pure & simple. P&G has a lot of power in the marketplace. All you have to do is look at the market share they hold in the products in your local supermarket aisle to know the kind of influence they have worldwide, not just w/US television. Five minutes of looking at the business dept. of the local library will give you a good idea of the Corp. influence P&G has w/entities far more powerful than the once 'big three' networks in the US. There is a reason why smaller companies follow P&G's lead in terms of marketing & advertising. It really doesn't matter if there is a viable market for ANYTHING, if P&G sends out the message that something isn't worth the time & $$ to commit to it. Others will follow like herds of sheep. No insult to sheep intended. eom

You can't go by what you were told by some dead guy 13 years ago. There is no viable market out there for P&G soaps that were cancelled over 30 years ago. Show us your research to prove that there is a market out there. P&G tried it and it failed. I think they know more about the soap business than you do. lol.

Mrs. G: Mr. Dixson wasn't the only one who told me that. It was also the way that P&G soaps had ALWAYS been done. I was told that by three network people & a local affiliate person who had worked at the network level. I'd bet that they knew far more about how things ran at the network level & w/P&G than you do, or the spin doctors who keep perpetuating the myth that the networks tell P&G how to do business. Even if the network cancelled the show, they don't own it. If P&G had agreed to end the relationships w/CBS & NBC, they could have shopped their shows around or created their own network, but they chose to pull the plug on their shows. Other shows changed networks, long before there were more than the big three out there! The point really is that P&G killed the last two shows they ended production on, pure & simple. The networks didn't have the power to order the way P&G had their shows' stories told. That was all P&G. eom

I actually agree with RB on this one. The show is not there anymore because P&G didn't want it there. It never would have gotten into the shape it was if that wasn't the way P&G wanted it. And I don't believe that P&G wanted to sell it to somewhere else at ALL! That was a bunch of big lies! They were just trying to keep people from boycotting P&G by doing lip service. Because they COULD have found another venue. They could have gotten rid of the show for years and had someone else take it over, but they wouldn't do it. I don't know WHY they wouldn't do it. But they wouldn't. And I blame them more than CBS!!! fee

I don't agree with Rosebud. P&G tested the waters by allowing Soapnet to air Another World a few years back. AW generated a 0.0 rating in women 18-49. Yup, a 0.0 Also, P&G put Edge of Night, Texas, AW, SFT on an all P&G soaps channel on the internet and it flopped. I disagree that there is a viable audience out there for these long cancelled shows. A few dozen viewers, maybe, but not enough to make it sustainable financially. Rosebud is wrong when she says that P&G did not try this.

Rosebud, as usual, you don't address facts when they go against what you think. Where was this viable soap audience when P&G tested the waters by allowing Soapnet to air Another World and it was a huge failure? How can you say there is a viable audience out there for old soaps when it has been tried, tested and failed?

---

Posted by: JennieGFe
Date posted: Thu Sep 24 17:17:01 2009
Message:
Nope!  Although Ellen Wheeler certainly didn't help matters with her total destruction of the show.  She's the worst EP.  But that aside, audience erosion is happening for every show and they will soon sink down to GL levels and be cancelled themselves.

---

Posted by: fee
Date posted: Thu Sep 24 10:24:14 2009
Message:
Nothing could have saved it, because they didn't WANT it to be saved.  They would and DID do anything possible to make the show go off.  If money was the problem, they could have done something about that.   They didn't WANT to do anything about it.  Actually, I would have paid a monthly fee to watch this show.  Actually, to watch any of them that have good stories and actors.  But I would NOT pay to watch what that hack JP writes.  But for GL?   I would have paid.   Also, if people were paying they should have had a say in the EPs and the HWs.  But the show was worth a lot to me.  

---

Posted by: Lulu
Date posted: Thu Sep 24 9:04:06 2009
Message:
Yes, they could have cut the show the one half hour and started calling it just The Light, hired a new producer, director and writers and were willing to work cheap, (I know they are out there) and continued on.  I can not believe game, judge and talk bring any better ratings.

---

Posted by: katy kennicott
Date posted: Thu Sep 24 1:40:01 2009
Message:
Nothing could have saved GL. Even Ellen Wheeler told 60 Minutes that it had been on the chopping block for 15 years. When the networks can produce game shows, judge shows and talk shows and charge the same advertising rates (or more) and produce them for a fraction of what it costs to produce a daily scripted series, guess which door they take. They don't have to pay writers or actors and there are far fewer people who require hair and makeup. They also don't have to pay union wages to take down and put up the sets. Take a look at Oprah's set, or Ellen's, or Regis & Kelly. This is so cheap to produce. Remember these are businessmen and women. They are not interested in anything except the bottom line. Trust me, if and when the game shows become too expensive and/or don't pull in enough ratings to justify their ad rates, they'll be gone, too.

Replies: (list all replies)

ITA with everything you said. The bottom line is money, and the execs know it is cheaper to put on court shows, talk shows and game shows rather than pay a cast and crew of a daytime drama. I fear ATWT is next, but the whole genre as a whole could be dying out. Viewers have many more options now, and the loss of audiences to cable hasn't helped either. It's sad, but a harsh reality. Ellen Wheeler's leadership sucked, I'll admit that, but the show would have just eventually disentigrated into a bigger mess had it continued on. I miss GL, but I had stopped watching almost two years ago because it was no longer the show I used to love./KB

While it may be cheaper to produce, it still isn't cheap. Kelly & Regis are making millions a year, each. Their sets may not be taken down & stored very often, but they change & they cost quite a lot to produce. There are also support staff and other costs that go into producing a show like LIVE! Also, the hosts of the shows are union members, so they are making at least scale--most well over that. So while it may be cheaper, it is still not cheap. The contestants may not be getting paid, but they are (like all talent) a small piece of a very large pie when you are looking at the budget. Still, to hear TPTB talk about it, soaps are more expensive to produce than the millions handed out on game shows! eom

Can you back up your statements Rosebud with facts? Tell us exactly how much it costs to produce R&K. How often do they store sets? What does it cost to store them? Give us the overall breakdown of everything. Compare it to soaps. Prove to us that it isn't that much cheaper to produce R&K than a soap. I know you can't prove it, but I'd love to see you try. lol You make general statements that you can't back up with proof.

---

---