Daniel Avery
Admin
I agree with this, though I would add that the ownership aspect (the Bells being involved financially as well as creatively in B&B) also has a role in the show's survival. In most of broadcast history, the networks interfered with/tinkered with soaps when they experienced slumps, demanding changes in writers, producers, and such. Brad Bell seems immune to such interference, or at least has enough power to ignore them. It wasn't until Bill Bell died that the network and Sony started tinkering with Y&R, with little benefit, and I would guess that Brad Bell has consolidated power over B&B in a way that his father had when he ran Y&R.Y&R is the only reason some people in the US still watch B&B. This theory has been around for many years, but the proof came when B&B became the first soap to return after Covid and was on air for a few weeks without the support of Y&R. To date, these weeks are B&B's all-time low in viewers. Only when Y&R returned with new episodes did B&B's ratings slowly rise again. I wonder if As the World Turns would still be on the air today if it had remained Y&R's lead-out and if B&B would have survived in Capitol's time slot.
Procter and Gamble (owners of ATWT) had decided long before to divest themselves of their soaps, and though I don't subscribe to the belief that they "intentionally" killed their soaps, I can confidently say that they did little to nothing to help them survive. I don't think ATWT would have survived any longer than it did if it had been in the post Y&R timeslot, since both P&G and CBS did not seem willing to support the show (or Guiding Light, for that matter) after about 2005. I'd call their actions between 2005 and 2010 "controlled implosion," where they slowly but surely let the shows drift off of people's radar. I recall ATWT, unlike most soaps, were told of their cancellation something like 18 months before the end, so P&G was definitely playing a long game with their exiting of the soap business.