Abraham J. Simpson

Even for dear old grandmom, outside of the one thing she paid attention to, the rest didn’t matter. Did anyone (in any significant numbers) really watch (as in engaged) all day long? In the days of games and soaps, were the Price is Right fans really sticking around through four soaps or whatever it was? And look, if someone really does actively watch all day, on say NBC, is that all that different from someone watching CNN etc? Today occupies four hours but by design the 9 and 10 am hours are different. NBC News Daily is different again. The one-man band crews, yeah, that’s hard. But then again, many jobs are rough, and you push through and hopefully move on, whatever your field.

They likely do, but that’s not important. This has proven to be a good, compatible option and a better fit in their lineup. If the viewers reject the newscast, then by all means, take a look at what you can do. They aren’t, at least as of today, no pun intended. Yes, stations have added local news as a trend. But repetitive isn’t an issue if, like most viewers, you’re not watching it all. I leave the house by 5 am most days, having caught some of the 4:30 newscast. It doesn’t matter if that content repeats in large part as I’m not watching. My kid typically watches just the 6:30 segment ahead of school. Doesn’t matter what they ran earlier. People by and large aren’t watching 3 hours intently. Some may have it on for hours for background noise, or the feeling of company like my grandmother did back in the day. She didn’t much know or care what most of the lineup was…other than All My Children…it was simply sound in an otherwise empty house.

It’s not as if improvement in a key demo and improved content retention for your (sometimes rambunctious) affiliates are nothing. Those are wins unto themselves. And there is runway to build. Days is what it is, and you’re not going to be able to do much more with that on the broadcast network side. If they can make it work on the streaming side, more power to them. That’s a bonus.

Good for NBC. This is a much better approach than sticking with Days.

A good question. Doesn’t seem likely to be cost effective to return to having two in the morning. At the same time, you don’t need one to just do noon. You have two covering all the evening shows.

And it’s hardly like any job anywhere is perfect, news most certainly included.

Hmmm, a new meteorologist role? https://empleos.disneycareers.com/trabajo/filadelfia/wpvi-meteorologist/391/57586125536?utm_campaign=google_jobs_apply&utm_source=google_jobs_apply&utm_medium=organic

Just saw that same article. And for wheat it’s worth, she was still named in the closing spiel of today’s 5 pm news. Crossing Broad got plenty. They don’t meed to stoop to invading privacy or spreading rumors.

She is (or was as of Sunday) still in the opening spiel, and supposedly still is on the website. Since they have an opening without talent, and they usually move quickly to put that in place when someone is officially gone, it’s unusual, but entirely possible there’s private reasons she’s not been on.

People asking questions does not require any news outlet do the same. People noticing someone is gone does not mean it’s newsworthy, particularly the often salacious way it’s portrayed. It needn’t actually spread a specific rumor to be clearly invasive. Yes, they covered the bachelorette party, because she chose to share that. She also chose to share details of her medical diagnosis some time back. We would, as a society, be better served by observing the mind-your-own-business approach.

Oh my gosh yes. The mining of social media for the most insignificant issue and portraying it as a “big deal” is really a problem. I’m not even knocking the use of some social media content in the news. God knows there are moments the world is heavy enough that a cute or “bubblegum” story helps lighten the load. Even then, moderation is key. But why someone is away from their job, or if they look different, or whatever along those lines…that’s not a story. Even public figures have private lives.

Honestly, posting rumormongering stories like "why is so-and-so not at work" calls into question the status of being a "legitimate" news outlet. Even as a public figure, some things are no one's business unless and until someone feels they want to share.

How does this clown continue to scam viewers?

Every generation seems to lament what those newfangled whippersnappers like. Bring back Milton Berle and Ed Sullivan. What the heck are music videos? Who wants to watch kids dance for an hour? What hasn’t changed is the audience dictates the content. What people reject goes away. And while sequels/reboots/rehashes of existing IP are by no means anything new in TV, they seem to get a disproportionate share of “there are no original ideas” when in fact there are many. Of course audiences familiar with whatever brand may gravitate toward checking it out; we’re human and like positive memories. If people stick around and enjoy the show on its own merits, great. But there’s plenty of original ideas and creative twists on older ones (Stranger Things and Wednesday from Netflix come to mind as one example of each). And all kinds of content from music to movies to TV has borrowed, some more blatantly than others, from what came before. Much of the original content from basic cable migrated to streaming as the audience did. Makes sense; follow the money. And it also follows that we’d see a big push early on for original content to give each platform an identity and a reason to pay up. That dust will settle and the investments will become more targeted into what proves to be working. The broadcast model is dying. It’s not dead and won’t be for a while, but it’s on the way. It’s going to need to rely on a changing mix of programs to wring some remaining life out of it, and rely on streaming to pick up some of the lost audience. For now, it’s sustainable with adjustments.

The audience chooses what it chooses, and whether any one of us likes or detests it, that’s where we are. There is still plenty of original syndicated fare that’s not Springer or courtroom shows, but when you’re the fifth or sixth place broadcaster in a world where your audience is also watching streaming, recordings, on-demand and the like, lower cost options are what you need to not take a loss. The advertising market has splintered and continues to splinter. There’s no going back. Spending money you don’t have and will never recoup isn’t going to work.

There’s a lot of wistful, rose-colored-glasses nostalgia in this thread. And perhaps a bit of “get off my lawn” as well. Trying to apply the model of broadcasting from decades ago into today’s world isn’t going to work. The audience has changed. Technology has changed. Yet the broadcasters should operate like it’s 1982? How does that work? The ecosystem is much larger, and people do not—and will not—watch content the way they once did. That’s not a bad thing; it’s the nature of the world. If you try to cling to the old ways, you’re hastening your demise.

Y&R beat those shows where it didn't have an advantage in timing. It was a better show back all those decades ago. (And far more people tuned in to Days/AMC than the preceding shows). Several factors interact with each other. But here we are in 2023. It's a vestige of a bygone era with that timing, and until they at least axe B&B, there's not much else to do, realistically, until it's time to put one or both out to pasture. That's the current point--there's nothing to get a leg up on. We've left that era long behind.

I think it was two things converging for NBC. Peacock needing content, heck yes. But they also had viable, if not terribly sexy, programming as an alternative from the news side of the house that would also align with their primary daytime network approach. Kind of two birds, one stone and all that.

That would suggest they find an opportunity to profit from it. Not everything goes over to a streaming service. Some series just die. For every “show X moves to streaming” you can list many more that don’t, even in the streaming era. What I suggested was there is no automatic reason to expect such a scenario to play out. Different platforms, different parent companies. Different strategic priorities. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn’t.

It’s not inevitable it goes to Paramount Plus. It’s entirely possible to just send it to the graveyard of TV shows. The midday CBS affiliate newscasts in the east would sill have Price as a lead in, for whatever that’s worth. And what station manager wouldn’t prefer the extra revenue for little extra investment in resources?

And even then it was in a sort of dismissive tone. Ah, the joys of outsized egos.

NBC may be experimenting with the Days on Peacock deal, but we have yet to see just how long that is really going to last. Would it work on Paramount Plus? That's dubious to be generous. And the Talk is never being cut to 30 minutes. B&B will go away before that happens. Y&R at 12:30 ET for a long time put it head to head with other soaps, not getting a jump. (Loving, anyone? Port Charles?) It's more a vestige of having an extra half hour of programming, not competing with another soap. Competition is everything--news, syndication, all of it. Y&R is at as much a disadvantage in areas where other hour long programs have started on the hour and it's at :30. If CBS can milk more money out of their remaining shows, more power to them. We all know the future isn't long term, but take the cash now, and when it's time to move on, just move on.

Bob was about one person, Bob. When the powers that be had the “audacity” to launch subsequent syndicated editions of the show (85, 94), he all but pouted and stamped his feet on air. It was kind of comical in how petty it was. But whatever, Drew does a nice job of working in positive references, and heck, maintains the spay-your-pets plug.

I shouldn’t say Drew himself is the only party responsible. It was as much the producer change and the process that followed of evolving the show. Set updates, more interaction and respect for the models and announcer, better prizes and so on. Once Drew became visibly more comfortable with the show, all of that began to click and growth followed. Naturally people are going to show deference and respect to Barker; he did it for 35 years. Drew is not quite to half that, and he has long sprinkled in references out of respect to Bob’s era. He’s made the show his while not forgetting what came before. As for Y&R, the problem with over-reliance on veterans is, bluntly, we all have a shelf life. It may just be the show running on fumes until the end comes. Even the characters who were the “young hotties” back in the day have become the old guard, and they’re still recycling the same plots. You can’t keep telling the same stories with the same actors well into their 60s and 70s and expect them to click with newer viewers. But budgets are what they are, and there just isn’t that big a pool out there to draw from. Props to NBC for trying to make a go of Days on Peacock, but let’s be honest: the end of soaps isn’t that far in the future.

It feels like there's a chicken-or-the-egg type situation there. GL got banished to 10 am after it had one foot, and maybe four toes on the other foot, in the grave. The move to mornings on major affiliates was just the final nail in the coffin, to keep going with the Halloween-esque death theme. It had become an anchor in the late slot, and CBS just seemed to meander with a daytime lineup carried by Price, Y&R and B&B. Finally, someone started swinging the axe and the dead weight was jettisoned. GL and ATWT had demos that were beyond awful for quite some time (worse than daytime as a whole, which is saying something). Price was rejuvenated with the hosting change, and improved the demo nightmare it had. Y&R at this point feels like it's coasting on fumes. My mom kept watching until near the end of her life; I checked out the story lines to try to have something she could relate to for conversation as her mind began to fail--but she could still kind of relate to that. And no wonder--it was the same damn characters and plots from when she was watching in like 1985. How it remains on the air baffles me, but it's not my P&L statement to worry about.