One Life To Live Discussion Group

Topic: No one ever said replacing OLTL would be easy…or necessary -- just ask ABC

From Media Insights

No Improvement for Lackluster The Revolution on ABC
The scenario continues to worsen.  Based on the weighted overnight household averages from Nielsen Media Research, day three of new ABC daytime talker The Revolution averaged a mere 1.5 rating/ 5 share in the 56 metered markets.  Comparably, that was down by 25 percent from its lead-in average, and a more severe 35 percent from former time period occupant One Life to Live in January 2011.  While The Revolution did equal its Tuesday overnight average (which was adjusted down from a 1.6 to a 1.5), the retention from the lead-in slipped.

The moral of the story: No one ever said replacing an institution like One Life to Live would be easy…or necessary.  Here is the three-day overnight breakdown:

The Revolution (ABC)
January 2011 time period average: 2.3/ 6

Monday 1/16/12
Lead-in: 2.3/ 6
The Revolution: 1.9/ 5

Tuesday 1/17/12
Lead-in: 1.9/ 6
The Revolution: 1.5/ 5

Wednesday 1/18/12
Lead-in: 2.0/ 6
The Revolution: 1.5/ 5 

Replies: (list all replies)

Exactly. Even if ABC decides to end the Revolution, they won't bring back OLTL. They'll just replace it with one of the dozen or so other shows they have in development.

---

Posted by: Crane Tolliver
Date posted: Thu Jan 19 22:42:18 2012
Message:

I hope this show fails quickly, because I think it's the only chance GH has.

---

Posted by: Gallagher
Date posted: Thu Jan 19 20:49:49 2012
Message:

As much as I want The Revolution to fail (and I do), I actually want The Chew to fail more. The smugness of that show - from before the launch, to the phony way they interact with one another, make my skin crawl, and just oooozes Frons, much more than The Revolution. To be fair, I have caught moments of the Chew off and on since its debut, and I haven't for The Revolution.

I want what ABC has done with axing two popular, long running shows to go down as the biggest TV blunder, ahead of NBC's Conan O'Brien/Jay Leno mess.

---

Posted by: Ice Cream Soldier
Date posted: Thu Jan 19 19:30:00 2012
Message:

Looks like The Revolution will not be televised!

(canned laughter).

Replies: (list all replies)

Good one! ~ R

---

Posted by: Dina
Date posted: Thu Jan 19 18:49:53 2012
Message:
Words cannot express how HAPPY I am to hear this!!! I wish I could be a fly on the wall in one of the ABCD exec's offices when someone says, *I think we made a mistake.....* I know we'll never hear it, but I want that so much!!!

---

Posted by: Wanda Wolek
Date posted: Thu Jan 19 18:13:43 2012
Message:

Tee. Hee.

Yes, I'm bitter too.

I'm sure The Revulsion will stick around and the anemic ratings will improve enough to take it off life support.  But still,...

Tee. Hee.

---

Posted by: @thegrove
Date posted: Thu Jan 19 17:20:15 2012
Message:
Not trying to defend The Revolution here -- but I think people need to remember that in the months right before the decision to cancel OLTL was made, the show was at times pulling an anemic 1.7/6.  And since the genre as a whole continues to trend downward and the median viewer age continues to rise, these facts (right at that point in time) coupled with how much it costs to produce a soap opera (compared to something like The Revolution) obviously played a part in the decisionmaking process.  Also, even with lower numbers, advertisers could end up being happier, because it's well-known that far more viewers watch these Lifestyle/Talk shows LIVE, while nearly 50% of soap viewers are recording only to fast-forward through the commercials.  That said, it's been implied from the get-go that even D/ABC would be surprised if BOTH of their new yakfests made it, fully expecting one of them to be a flop.  Supposedly, they have 20 more in the backroom to choose from.

Replies: (list all replies)

Viewers timeshift just as much for shows like The Revolution as they do soaps. --Crane eom

The anemic ratings didn't happen overnight either. The quality of the show, as w/all soaps over the last 20+ yrs, has continued to suffer to the point where MILLIONS of soap fans tuned out. Watching paint dry was more interesting than what soaps became. That didn't HAVE to be the case. As I've said for yrs, as long as the decision makers failed to appreciate what soaps have to offer & talk down to the audience, they were making their proficies for soaps' future self fulfilling. Soaps still have a lot of stories to tell, in the right hands. There are lots of talented actors out there, proven & unproven, who won't get the chance to shine because of bad decision making at levels far above EPs & HWs. TPTB (Corp) have a very different idea of 'long term' success than those who made soaps successful. Yes, there are other viewing options, but rather than see that as a challenge to bring the best & brightest to the table to make soaps a viable viewing option & embracing technology that would make viewing easier & more appealing to the mobile audience, they look for immediate gratification. They think ahead in terms of episodes or 'seasons' at best. They don't think in soap terms--like yrs ahead & it shows. I look at primetime shows & awards shows, seeing MANY familiar faces from daytime & seeing many familiar names from behind the cameras as well--from daytime. The idea that the future in both areas won't have soaps to be the introduction to careers is very disappointing. Every time someone says how talented folks like Laurence Fishburne, Marg Helgenberger, Julianne Moore, Brad Pitt or Tom Selleck are I smile. I remember all of them getting a foothold on soaps. I hear familiar voices in voicovers/narrations (James Earl Jones) I also smile, remembering that many of the voiceover actors also spent part of their careers in daytime. That opportunity for onscreen experience & building the foundations of their all important fan bases simple won't be there. I'm called negative frequently. It isn't me, it is the sad reality that Corp. has created. eom

---

Posted by: KarenK
Date posted: Thu Jan 19 16:26:33 2012
Message:
Actually, as long as its cheap to produce and the right demo is watching, those ratings will not bother ABC in the least. It is all about dollars and advertisers will pay more for less total viewers if those viewers are of what they consider the right demo.

Replies: (list all replies)

At one point Anne Sweeney of ABC said it's all about the eyeballs. Maybe what she really meant is it's all about the eyeballs of women who want to lose weight but haven't heard of weight watchers. More accurately, her motivation is clearly bottom line profit. I'd argue there are branding and loyalty issues too, however. The Revolution won't help ABC on either of those fronts. ... Ina

When Sweeney made that comment about ''eyeballs'' what she neglected to mention is that it's about ''18-49 eyeballs'' and the cost to attract them in relation to ad rates. And this is no different than how the game is played by any of the commercial-sponsored networks and can certainly be seen regularly with primetime shows. .. Look at CBS. Last year, their critically-acclaimed drama,The Good Wife, and el-cheapo reality show, Undercover Boss, were pulling about the same number of total viewers. Yet, Undercover Boss was renewed for a second season almost immediately after it debuted, while The Good Wife was said to be ''on the bubble'' almost till it was time to announce the 2011-12 season.

@thegrove: Yes, IA. However, you aren't taking into account a couple of things. First, the 'eyeballs' watching primetime are valued very differently by Corp. than those watching daytime. The same number of viewers watching daytime are perceived by Corp. & marketing execs as 'uneducated' & as having less buying power. Those same 'eyballs' watching primetime are perceived as being 'educated' & far MORE valuable to advertisers. The other thing that is often overlooked is that shows like 'Undercover Boss' have fewer episodes per 'season' & can be off the air for months at a time. Their episodes are stand alone, they don't have story arcs that take multiple episodes to slog through. Everything wraps up at the end of the hour. Also, none of the participants of Undercover Boss, or most reality shows, have big time agents & entertainment unions to deal with. They also don't have writing staffs. There are lots of reasons why reality shows are cheaper. eom

And there's our daily lecture from the all knowing Rosebud. Gee as if we didn't know the reasons why reality shows are cheaper.

Wendy: Not a lecture, just facts. Honestly, a lot of viewers DON'T know about the cost difference. TPTB (Corp) have talked about the days when soaps supported primetime & that the ballooning costs of producing soaps has made things cost prohibitive. On the surface that may be true, but production costs for primetime were cheaper back in the day as well. The cast members of All In The Family, for instance, weren't making $22 million a year. Far from it. Soaps were more about storytelling & character driven motivation. They were more watchable because there was a belief that there was an intelligent audience out there. Sorry, but a lot of people, including Corp., rarely seem to be aware of those elements. Production costs went up for soaps, not because of the fans or because of some 'evil force', Corp. wanted to make soaps something they weren't & the audience dwindled because of that. Not a lecture, just facts. eom

Rosebud, believe it or not, us minions DO know more than you. Remember how people like me were telling you that Bill Bell was too ill to be involved with Y&R, but you insisted that he was still involved? You were ultimately proven WRONG!

---

Posted by: TC2
Date posted: Thu Jan 19 15:32:35 2012
Message:
I hope The Revulsion continues to sink so General Hospital can be saved.

---

Posted by: Rosebud1
Date posted: Thu Jan 19 13:18:38 2012
Message:
I'm not watching 'The Revolution' because it doesn't interest me.  However, it hasn't had time to build an audience yet!  The show's hosts all have fan bases that will follow them, eventually.  You don't think that the network had to find something to fill that hour?

I'm all for the idea of going back to the traditional daypart fare of soaps.  I DO think that making them unwatchable & boring was a huge mistake, as well as that self-fullfilling proficy--ABC made their bed, it is about time that they don't have an instant hit on their hands.  But they also don't think that any of their replacement shows are going to have a long life, by our standards.  They'll consider a show a success if it lasts a 'season' or two.  TPTB (Corp) aren't thinking in terms of decades of success here. 

Replies: (list all replies)

Agree -- the network is extremely short sighted. Unfortunately, all the executives will still make millions and not lose a wink of sleep. ... Ina

Rosebud - ITA with your perspective that network execs only plan on these shows lasting a few seasons. In fact, they probably look at that as allowing them to adapt to changing tastes and viewer interests more readily. Maybe not so much with the daytime ''personality-centered'' talk shows. After all, they'd all like to find the next Oprah. But with these lifestyle-type shows, they've got dozens of 'em on paper ready to try out. Plus with these multi-panel type shows, they can always mix things up by changing hosts (like they've already done on The Talk.)

---

Posted by: Rhonda
Date posted: Thu Jan 19 12:54:45 2012
Message:
Good. I hope things get worse and this ridiculous show continues to tank. Yes, I'm bitter and I'll be that way for awhile.

Replies: (list all replies)

I thought the bitterness would have turned completely to sadness. But I'm not that good of a person, I guess. I'm still bitter too. ... Ina

---

---