ATWT Cancelled?!?!?!

[DToTheJ]

SoapNet... Not just a name change, of course, but as more of these types of programs die off, it leaves the potential open for the network to show more and more reality or nonsensical shows.

Of course, they can follow the lead of MTV, VH1 and CMT by adding this pap, while keeping the SoapNet name.

Valid point taken! "Next on SoapNet: Son-In-Law with Pauly Shore, followed by Extreme Makeover: Home Edition!"

 

[bpatrick]

Anyone shopping "World" elsewhere is on a fruitless mission.

One option we haven't thrown out yet: a back-to-the-future programming approach at CBS...daytime reruns of primetime shows. Get ready for CSI, weekdays at 2 ET. (Just kidding, just kidding.)

I'm with you on this one. "ATWT" has the same problem "GL" had:
poor demographics, and that's not going to make it attractive to
SoapNet or any cable network that targets women.

I'm now convinced that CBS never had any intention of keeping "ATWT"
on the air past 9/17/10. In April, when the Eye network announced the
cancellation of "GL," it said that "ATWT" had a year to get its ratings up.
How much they had to come up wasn't mentioned. It's been slightly over eight months.
I suppose CBS didn't see any miraculous uptick between now and April, but I believe
that when you give your word you should keep it.

 

[imhomerjay]

Just wondering--did they see a significant downturn, which would indicate to the powers that be that it was time to "fish or cut bait" (there's a more colorful variant of that same sentiment, but not for a message board ).

It's a tough business, and I certainly feel badly for the folks who are losing a longtime job (be it cast, crew, writers, production staff, etc.). No matter what replaces it, it's more than likely it won't be as labor intensive, and thus fewer jobs will be created to balance it out. Welcome to the world today.

 

[justpassingthough]

No one has yet to bring up how this is an unfortunate side effect of the changes allowed by the Telecommunications Act that President Clinton signed into law. We saw it first in primetime, and frankly, it took a while for daytime to catch up. Why pay loads of money to Sony or P&G to produce programming when it was now legal to produce as much of your own programming as possible? You're hard pressed to find programming today that originates from a rival studio or network, with the exception of some Warner Bros. shows since they no longer have an entire broadcast network to devote their product.

With that said, the ABC soaps seem to be in the best position to survive long term, as they're produced "in-house". Ultimately, with SoapNet, subscriber fees help to alleviate some of the costs of production, so advertising becomes a little less important.

The rampant deregulation of the 70s, 80s and 1990s has taken its toll on retail stores, banks, grocers that were around for decades, if not over a century. Daytime TV is just the latest victim.

 

[imhomerjay]

I know some camps love to blame Clinton for everything...but, seriously, this is beyond "stretching" it. The ratings were at the low end and the costs too high. Plain and simple recipe for something to have to change.

 

[justpassingthough]

I know some camps love to blame Clinton for everything...but, seriously, this is beyond "stretching" it. The ratings were at the low end and the costs too high. Plain and simple recipe for something to have to change.

For the record, I wasn't blaming Clinton (I'm a lifelong Democrat), just mentioning when it was signed into law and by which President. Both the House and the Senate were in Republican control at the time, so they're equally to blame (maybe even more so since the itch to deregulate is typically scratched first by Republicans, who probably would have overridden any Clinton veto of the bill).

Yes, the ratings were on the low end and costs continue to climb. What we are seeing in TV now, though, is that networks will choose to first cancel shows owned by outside production companies with ratings and demos similar to in-house productions. This is sadly a symptom of the Telecommunications Act.

 

[crainbebo]

My mother used to watch the show ALL the time!!!!! This makes me really sad. :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

-crainbebo

 

[bpatrick]

Just wondering--did they see a significant downturn, which would indicate to the powers that be that it was time to "fish or cut bait" (there's a more colorful variant of that same sentiment, but not for a message board ).

It's a tough business, and I certainly feel badly for the folks who are losing a longtime job (be it cast, crew, writers, production staff, etc.). No matter what replaces it, it's more than likely it won't be as labor intensive, and thus fewer jobs will be created to balance it out. Welcome to the world today.

"ATWT" has been holding at about a 1.7 rating ever since the April 1 announcement.
I read on another website that Procter & Gamble has been a victim of global warming
(can't explain why) and in order to help its bottom line it is getting out of the business
of producing soaps altogether. It's probably just as well; "ATWT" and "Guiding Light"
lost money for years.

I know it's a business decision; I just hate it came just before Christmas. As Eileen
Fulton said yesterday, "This is a hell of a Christmas present."

 

[imhomerjay]

Global warming, I like that. I knew it was to blame for everything.

One thing that comes to mind is that it may work to the advantage of Y&R/B&B that they sell well overseas, bringing in welcome extra cash to offset some of that investment. ATWT....in anything I've read, I've never seen that one pop up as a comparably popular show elsewhere.

As for the telecommunications act, GL was replaced by a Fremantle-produced show, and we have no word on whether ATWT will be replaced by something out of the CBS stable or not. Frankly, though, from a viewing perspective, who produces a show isn't relevant. How many viewers do you think could actually cite the studio behind a given show, let alone care? That act coincided with the explosion of digital viewing options, satellite and digital cable (and more recently online, though all major research shows that viewing is additive, not a replacement). It's not realistiv to think that the networks would somehow be doing that much better being saddled with outdated regulations when their audience declines are a product of more slices to the pie.

 

[searadiofreak]

Alluded to in an earlier post, but perhaps missed by some...this was indeed the soap that Uncle Walter interrupted with his voiceover, "shots have been fired at President Kennedy's motorcade". A trivial, yet interesting footnote to "As The World Turns", and indeed it did on that day in '63.

 

[justpassingthough]

Global warming, I like that. I knew it was to blame for everything.

One thing that comes to mind is that it may work to the advantage of Y&R/B&B that they sell well overseas, bringing in welcome extra cash to offset some of that investment. ATWT....in anything I've read, I've never seen that one pop up as a comparably popular show elsewhere.

As for the telecommunications act, GL was replaced by a Fremantle-produced show, and we have no word on whether ATWT will be replaced by something out of the CBS stable or not. Frankly, though, from a viewing perspective, who produces a show isn't relevant. How many viewers do you think could actually cite the studio behind a given show, let alone care? That act coincided with the explosion of digital viewing options, satellite and digital cable (and more recently online, though all major research shows that viewing is additive, not a replacement). It's not realistiv to think that the networks would somehow be doing that much better being saddled with outdated regulations when their audience declines are a product of more slices to the pie.

Overall, there has been an increase in original programming, and avenues of programming since the Telecommunications Act. The corporations providing the programming and avenues, though, have decreased. This is a side effect of the act.

ATWT was recently controversial because they featured a gay storyline in which the two characters kissed, and eventually made love, both firsts for daytime TV. With fewer companies controlling the media, the chances for diversity decrease and this is how it affects the viewer.

 

[imhomerjay]

The notion of fewer companies controlling the media is one of those oft-repeated myths that just isn't supported by facts.

Go back three or four decades, and the media was basically three major networks and some less powerful independents on the TV side. Period. Yes, in an era of "500 channels," some companies do have a bigger presence, but many, many more companies now provide programming than was true years ago.

 

[justpassingthough]

The notion of fewer companies controlling the media is one of those oft-repeated myths that just isn't supported by facts.

Go back three or four decades, and the media was basically three major networks and some less powerful independents on the TV side. Period. Yes, in an era of "500 channels," some companies do have a bigger presence, but many, many more companies now provide programming than was true years ago.

You can't honestly tell me that with deregulation and vertical integration there aren't fewer voices in the media? In Los Angeles, where I reside, NBC has a duopoly, News Corp. has a duopoly, Tribune owns a television station and the main newspaper, the list goes on and on. Deregulation has impacted the amount of voices delivering mass media in many a market. When there were rules in place to regulate ownership, large markets may have had 20 radio owners, 7 television owners, multiple newspaper owners, etc.

So while there may be more producers of content, the avenues of delivery are certainly more concentrated and this impacts diversity of thought. Corporations always have an agenda, and whether you agree with their agenda or not, they will push it.

 

[imhomerjay]

It isn't a broadcast world any more, and moreover, what needs to be considered is the potential situation without what cross-ownership situations do exist. Two over-the-air TV stations owned by one company in one market is largely irrelevant when there hundreds of other options available, not to mention the nearly infinite array of information online.

Yes, I can tell you there aren't fewer voices because broadcast TV and radio are largely meaningless distinctions. If I like History channel, it makes zero difference whether that's over the air, comes into my home via satellite, on cable or some other means. On that score, there are many, many more voices offering content now than a generation or two ago.

On the newspaper front, most cities are lucky to support one (major) paper now; cross-ownership is the only way for two papers to survive in some situations. It's just not the same world, and all the antiquated (and Constitutionally dubious) regulation in the world isn't going to change that.

 

[justpassingthough]

It isn't a broadcast world any more, and moreover, what needs to be considered is the potential situation without what cross-ownership situations do exist. Two over-the-air TV stations owned by one company in one market is largely irrelevant when there hundreds of other options available, not to mention the nearly infinite array of information online.

Yes, I can tell you there aren't fewer voices because broadcast TV and radio are largely meaningless distinctions. If I like History channel, it makes zero difference whether that's over the air, comes into my home via satellite, on cable or some other means. On that score, there are many, many more voices offering content now than a generation or two ago.

On the newspaper front, most cities are lucky to support one (major) paper now; cross-ownership is the only way for two papers to survive in some situations. It's just not the same world, and all the antiquated (and Constitutionally dubious) regulation in the world isn't going to change that.

I agree that broadcast radio and TV and newspaper situations are a little irrelevant, and less important given the options afforded to us by the Internet, cable, and satellite. However...

You use History Channel as an example, but History like so many other cable networks is owned by Hearst, Disney and NBC/Comcast. You will be hard pressed to find a cable network that isn't owned by one of the few media corporations in this country.

So I think we should just agree to disagree, since this no longer has anything to do with the topic at hand.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Does this mean that The Bold And The Beautiful will extend to an hour or will the As The World Turns timeslot go back to the affiliates?

Better still, how is Let's Make A Deal doing in the old Guiding Light slot? Maybe another game show in the works if LMAD is doing well. Password or another Pyramid perhaps?

In my opinion, I predict that CBS affils would get the whole hour to themselves at 12 Noon, move Y&R to 1PM ET, and expand B&B and move that to 2PM ET.

Noneoftheless, the cancellation of "As The World Turns" means the end of P&G's longtime involvement in soaps.

I second that, and the affiliate here in Columbus, Ohio...WBNS 10TV...would just love it. Station was #1 in all time slots in the November sweeps.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

On the Oprah front, I wouldn't be shocked to see some of the O&Os add news, but I don't think we'll see some blanket approach--case by case so to speak.

It would not surprise me if WBNS 10TV in Columbus went to news at 4 p.m. after Oprah rides off into the sunset. Cleveland CBS affiliate WOIO has had news starting at 4 p.m. for some time.

 

[brian4]

Alluded to in an earlier post, but perhaps missed by some...this was indeed the soap that Uncle Walter interrupted with his voiceover, "shots have been fired at President Kennedy's motorcade". A trivial, yet interesting footnote to "As The World Turns", and indeed it did on that day in '63.

Did a quick check: Did CBS News interrupt ATWT to announce President Ronald Reagan has been shot? According to Wikipedia, Reagan and 3 others were shot around 2:30 PM Eastern Standard Time which would have been ATWT time slot. I remember being home watching something, probably a CBS Soap, when I heard about the assassination attempt.

 

[searadiofreak]

Alluded to in an earlier post, but perhaps missed by some...this was indeed the soap that Uncle Walter interrupted with his voiceover, "shots have been fired at President Kennedy's motorcade". A trivial, yet interesting footnote to "As The World Turns", and indeed it did on that day in '63.

Did a quick check: Did CBS News interrupt ATWT to announce President Ronald Reagan has been shot? According to Wikipedia, Reagan and 3 others were shot around 2:30 PM Eastern Standard Time which would have been ATWT time slot. I remember being home watching something, probably a CBS Soap, when I heard about the assassination attempt.

If true, (I'm not sure of the times on that one), an interesting coincidence.

Like in '63, the networks went wall-to-wall with the Reagan assasination attempt in '81, but the drama was lessened by the apparent "minor" injuries Reagan had incurred. Only later would we find out the injuries were more serious. This was proven to be a cover-up, but a cover-up that probably was smart during what was then still the "Cold War".

As for Oprah leaving the 4pm spot in many markets, yes, I would expect many markets to add news there. However, if a hot replacement comes on to the scene, maybe not. Time will tell. 4pm newcasts are hit or miss ratings-wise, but the lack of Oprah competition could change the playing field big-time.

 

[bpatrick]

Doesn't WKRC Cincinnati also have a 4 PM newscast?

I was watching ABC the day Reagan was shot and believe
(after all it's been nearly 30 years and it didn't have quite the
impact of the JFK assassination--not on me, anyway) they
interrupted "One Life To Live" about 2:40. (Frank Reynolds'
"Let's get this straight! Let's get this nailed down so we can
report this accurately!" during the confusion over James Brady's
condition--or whether he was still alive--didn't come until after 5.)