• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Disney’s ABC Family Cable Network Mulling Reboot

It's typical of how the suits think that new graphics comes before new programs. After all, most viewers tune in to see snappy logos than they do to see the actual programs.

It's also interesting that they have thought for years that "families" only included young adults and teenagers, the people least likely to want to spend time with their families.
 
And because of a long-ago Deal With The Devil, the (INSERT NAME) Family Channel is forever saddled with the obligatory carriage of The 700 Club due to its former ownership by Pat Robertson.
 
rgseark2009 said:
And because of a long-ago Deal With The Devil, the (INSERT NAME) Family Channel is forever saddled with the obligatory carriage of The 700 Club due to its former ownership by Pat Robertson.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a smart lawyer can get them out of that - especially if it's a cold re-boot in which there's no more "Family Channel" and some other entity takes over the transponder.

The 700 Club is on enough other channels anyway. They don't need this one channel.
 
FredLeonard said:
I'm sure a smart lawyer can get them out of that - especially if it's a cold re-boot in which there's no more "Family Channel" and some other entity takes over the transponder.

The 700 Club is on enough other channels anyway. They don't need this one channel.
Click to expand...

isn't the HD feed of ABC Family legally a separate channel and they can just kick Pat Robertson off by shutting down the SD feed
 
FredLeonard said:
The 700 Club is on enough other channels anyway. They don't need this one channel.
Click to expand...

Besides, we so need another play or two of That 70s Show, Reba or Boy Meets World each day. ;)

Jeepers, rid us of Ol' Pat and we can get another couple half dozen plays of Polar Express this time of year.

Sing it with me . . . "Here, we've only got one rule: Never ever let it cool! Keep it cookin in the pot. You've got - - Hot choc-o-lat!"
 
rgseark2009 said:
And because of a long-ago Deal With The Devil, the (INSERT NAME) Family Channel is forever saddled with the obligatory carriage of The 700 Club due to its former ownership by Pat Robertson.
Click to expand...
And the obligation to keep the word "Family" in the name. Remember when ABC wanted to change the name to XYZ?
 
nomadcowatbk said:
could a reboot of the channel mean new carriage agreements or a legally new channel? isn't that the only way can kick Pat Roberson off that channel, I guess they'll just force them to carry a possible new channel with ESPN
Click to expand...

It could. Or it could mean only changes in form and no change in content. When a TV network announces a "reboot", it could mean almost anything.
 
nomadcowatbk said:
could a reboot of the channel mean new carriage agreements or a legally new channel? isn't that the only way can kick Pat Roberson off that channel, I guess they'll just force them to carry a possible new channel with ESPN
Click to expand...

My best guess is ... probably.

From the Wikipedia entry, but with no verification of the contract details (there was a link to an old article in Wired which has disappeared from their site):

The next major plan was to reposition the channel to market it to college students, young women, or to a more hip audience under the name "XYZ", a reverse reference to ABC. However, Disney discovered that the original sale from CBN to International Family Entertainment contained a stipulation that the channel contain the word "Family" in the name permanently, regardless as to who owns the network. Legally, this meant that Disney would have had to shut down Fox Family and create XYZ as an entirely new network. Since this would have canceled all of Fox Family's carriage contracts, cable and satellite providers would not have been obligated to put XYZ in the channel slot vacated by Fox Family.

If that's true, ABC would have to use every bit of leverage it has to renegotiate every carriage agreement it has to get a brand new network carried in place of the present ABC Family.

Of course, the real blame falls on the shoulders of Fox's attorneys for not having those two provisions excised from the original deal before it was consummated.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom