Did Disney miss a golden opertunity to ditch the 700 club?

[Irishfl]

I'm just wondering if a few years ago when Disney launched ABC Family HD, if a loophole was there they could've used to leave behind the "family" name, and 700 club baggage.

Now, from what I know, the agreement back when Pat Robinson sold the family channel was that...
1. The word family had to stay in the channel name (I suppose this was to secure the type of format the channel would have, but looking at some of the stuff ABC family airs today not sure it worked.)

2. the 700 club would remain airing on the channel 3 times a day.

3. CBN could have a few weekend long telethons a year.

Might be more, but those are the ones I know.

Anyway this agreement was made well before HDTV. The reason first fox, and now ABC have kept to this agreement, instead of just shutting down the network, and starting a brand new one was because of the cable penetration it had. However with an HDTV network you have to start over anyway.

So with that inmind, could Disney have been able to say start a HD cable network, called it ABC XYZ (thats what they wanted to rename ABC family at one point) air mostly the same things as the standard ABC family, but with a few different things, and most importanly no 700 club, and just package it with ESPN, disney, abc family, ect when it comes to cable carriage?

It wouldn't be unprecedented for a channel's HD feed to be different then its main. MTV/VH1/ and CMT shared a channel before getting their own under the name MHD. Vs. and golf channel shared a channel before splitting.

 

[philosofy]

So there is no buyout provision in the contract between Robertson and whoever owns the channel? Wonder what a court would award old Pat as damages if Disney tried to can the 700 Club and both sides ended up in court? I guess its more than what Disney would earn over a reasonable period as I'm sure some of their lawyers must have thought about this before.

 

[KentBrockman]

I have a feeling when old Pat kicks the bucket Disney will negotiate an out of the contract and whomever is left at the "ministry" will sell off the assets of CBN. TV ministries aren't the cash cow they used to be thanks to the economy, their quickly dying off elderly audience and their antiquated business models.

I say business models because IMO they are nothing but a way to make money for a handful of select folks. :

Here's a good example an antiquated business model that's older than the Shroud of Turin and unable to adapt to current market and economic conditions:

http://www2.wnct.com/nct/lifestyles...f_power_broadcasts_after_revenue_drop/103635/

A 27% drop in revenue over the course of a year is huge.

 

[tothedj]

Don't look for CBN to go away anytime soon, in addition to their broadcast facilities in Virginia Beach, which produces daily broadcasts of "The 700 Club", "CBN Newswatch", "Christian World News", and streams a 24-hour service "CBN News Channel",
The Fountain's Inn & Conference Center, and Regent University, the younger members of the Robertson Family, Tim & Gordon,
will take the reigns when their father passes, whether or not "The 700 Club" remains on "ABC Family" is yet to be seen, but
i'm sure the powers in charge at the corporate level would like to cancel the deal, but when a cable network like them cover
90 to 95 million homes, CBN will do everything they can to keep this from happening, because without them, they only have
airings on television stations at various times, and on other "Christian" networks like TBN, who is #2 behind ABC Family in
national cable coverage, i'm not a regular watcher of the program, but their balance of news and stories gives viewers some
inspitation that is needed these days.

 

[DS67]

What is so bad about Christian programing? It seems there's an anti-Christian bias with quite a few people on this message board.

 

[mnradiofan]

What is so bad about Christian programing? It seems there's an anti-Christian bias with quite a few people on this message board.

Nothing at all, when it can survive on it's own merit. But when it is forced upon people, whether they want it or not (ie regardless of commercial viability of the format or show in question), then that's the problem.

 

[KentBrockman]

What is so bad about Christian programing?

Ignorant quotes like this one made by Pat Robertson regarding Haiti:

"They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal [...] ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other."

I don't want drift off topic in this thread... But I think the quote above says a lot. Let's try keep to the subject the original poster brought up.

 

[DS67]

What is so bad about Christian programing?

Ignorant quotes like this one made by Pat Robertson regarding Haiti:

"They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal [...] ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other."

I don't want drift off topic in this thread... But I think the quote above says a lot. Let's try keep to the subject the original poster brought up.

Haiiti is a corrupt hellhole. With the corruption donating money to them is about like flushing it down a toilet. A lot of the money will be pocketed by haitian politicians.

 

[imhomerjay]

What is so bad about Christian programing? It seems there's an anti-Christian bias with quite a few people on this message board.

Nothing at all, when it can survive on it's own merit. But when it is forced upon people, whether they want it or not (ie regardless of commercial viability of the format or show in question), then that's the problem.

What's being "forced" on anyone? Is anyone breaking into homes and holding people hostage to force them to watch anything?

No, thought not.

If it's the "700 Club deal" for ABC Family, both they (Disney) and Fox before them willfully executed a purchase agreement that included a clause to run the show. No one forced them to sign the agreements. It may be a particularly strong clause, but that doesn't change that it was not something "forced" on anyone.

As for over-the-air programming, if the various organizations buy either the station or the time slots, that's not being forced on anyone, either. They have the money to make the purchase, thus meeting the "survive on its own merit" standard, and, like all channels, no one--not a single person--is compelled to watch the programming. Thus, no force.

I dislike Pat Robertson as much as anyone, and find his comments beyond repulsive, but it doesn't change the fact that TVs have off switches and the ability to view different channels.

 

[YEKIMI]

What's being "forced" on anyone? Is anyone breaking into homes and holding people hostage to force them to watch anything?

No one's breaking into homes but if I want cable, even just basic cable, I am being "forced" to pay for that crap by the "must carry" rules that the politicians and FCC forced on the cable industry. Out of the 12 channels that come with basic cable in my area, 6 of them are ones I would NEVER watch, 4 religious channels and two infomercial channels. Oops, make that 5 religious channels, one of the infomercial channels was bought out by a religious outfit and now the only thing they are "selling" is religion. Once cable lets me pick 'ala carte' channels, meaning only the ones I want to watch, then I'll think about subscribing to cable. It will never happen because the religious broadcasters will throw millions of dollars [that their viewers send them to spread the word] at the politicians to buy their votes to make sure it won't. They know that if viewers were given the choice, they'd be on the outside looking in when tens of thousands would dump them given the chance. They would then be forced to buy time on various stations around the country all the while crying poormouth how this would bankrupt them if they were forced to do that.

 

[MarcB]

I think instead of spending money producing these awful shows such as Greek, Secret Life, Make it or Break It, etc and all these horrible movies they should take that money give it to Pat Robertson and say "Bye".

 

[imhomerjay]

So they should cancel shows that, for the most part, are helping them grow their ratings and bring in the money for the sole purpose of putting themselves out of business? It's an interesting business model, but not one likely to be terribly successful.

 

[ding12]

I thought Disney missed the opportunity at another point.

When the SoapNet channel had coverage of say 40 million HH, while ABC Family had 70 million HH...just using arbitrary HH counts, Disney could have negotiated deals where the new channel (SoapNet) swapped positions in packages (DirecTV Dish) or more exposed cable tiers, so that SoapNet would reach 70 million homes, while the Family channel was downgraded and had less of a reach.

Over time they could change the name/focus of SoapNet, but essentially, have a basic channel on many cable systems, without The 700 Club.

 

[ding12]

I'm just wondering if a few years ago when Disney launched ABC Family HD, if a loophole was there they could've used to leave behind the "family" name, and 700 club baggage.

Now, from what I know, the agreement back when Pat Robinson sold the family channel was that...
1. The word family had to stay in the channel name (I suppose this was to secure the type of format the channel would have, but looking at some of the stuff ABC family airs today not sure it worked.)

2. the 700 club would remain airing on the channel 3 times a day.

3. CBN could have a few weekend long telethons a year.

Might be more, but those are the ones I know.

Anyway this agreement was made well before HDTV. The reason first fox, and now ABC have kept to this agreement, instead of just shutting down the network, and starting a brand new one was because of the cable penetration it had. However with an HDTV network you have to start over anyway.

So with that inmind, could Disney have been able to say start a HD cable network, called it ABC XYZ (thats what they wanted to rename ABC family at one point) air mostly the same things as the standard ABC family, but with a few different things, and most importanly no 700 club, and just package it with ESPN, disney, abc family, ect when it comes to cable carriage?

It wouldn't be unprecedented for a channel's HD feed to be different then its main. MTV/VH1/ and CMT shared a channel before getting their own under the name MHD. Vs. and golf channel shared a channel before splitting.

The thing is the HD feed is still an ancillary service. There are still a vast number of cable subscribers with analog cable, digital but no HD, and the model is still based on the majority.

 

[mnradiofan]

What is so bad about Christian programing? It seems there's an anti-Christian bias with quite a few people on this message board.

Nothing at all, when it can survive on it's own merit. But when it is forced upon people, whether they want it or not (ie regardless of commercial viability of the format or show in question), then that's the problem.

What's being "forced" on anyone? Is anyone breaking into homes and holding people hostage to force them to watch anything?

No, thought not.

If it's the "700 Club deal" for ABC Family, both they (Disney) and Fox before them willfully executed a purchase agreement that included a clause to run the show. No one forced them to sign the agreements. It may be a particularly strong clause, but that doesn't change that it was not something "forced" on anyone.

As for over-the-air programming, if the various organizations buy either the station or the time slots, that's not being forced on anyone, either. They have the money to make the purchase, thus meeting the "survive on its own merit" standard, and, like all channels, no one--not a single person--is compelled to watch the programming. Thus, no force.

I dislike Pat Robertson as much as anyone, and find his comments beyond repulsive, but it doesn't change the fact that TVs have off switches and the ability to view different channels.

It's being forced on the network (the 700 club, anyways) by a strong clause in the contract. Sure, Fox could have walked away from the deal, but that didn't make sense for them at the time. If "The 700 Club" were forced to make it on it's own merit, then it wouldn't, just as most "pay for pray" programming is done. But, these programs prey on the old for donations based on the thought of God not letting them into heaven if they don't send money, and then they use that money to buy time (or in the case of Pat Robertson to start a private, commercially driven network) all while taking advantage of tax codes to make it happen.

We have seen time and time again that, if forced to make it only on the merits that all other programming makes it, IE commercially, that it just doesn't happen. And if "The 700 Club" was forced to pay the same rates as other programming on other networks, my guess is that it wouldn't make it either. If people really want this programming, then why can't it be commercially successful?

 

[imhomerjay]

And ABC could have declined to purchase the network, too, but it made sense. Both companies knew the agreement going in, and weren't tricked, forced or otherwise made to do something. That's not "force," it's looking at the entire picture and deciding what makes sense. They--either one--could have built a network from scratch, but chose not to.
Calling it "forced" doesn't make it so, it was voluntary.

Likewise, most of the religious programming does make it on its own. It pays for the time it occupies, based on donations, again, voluntary ones. People are responsible for their own donations--it's called personal responsibility. Among those shows that does pay for many slots has been the 700 Club for many years; it's not the exclusive province of the former CBN.

 

[TexasTom]

Both Fox and Disney walked in to their deals to acquire the Family Channel network with their eyes open -- ie, they were aware of the ongoing obligation to continue running "The 700 Club" and other CBN content.

It's reasonable to assume that obligation lowered the value of the channel, but since that obligation was no secret, Fox (and later Disney) were free to factor the impact of that obligation into their decisions on how much they were willing to pay for the network. If they didn't do so, I have little sympathy for them -- these are supposedly well run companies, and if they overpaid for the network considering it's limitations, that's their problem.

In any event, "The 700 Club" has at least one thing in common with some of the other programming that now airs on "ABC Family Channel" -- it's not really what I'd call good family viewing...

 

[MarcB]

I wonder if a similar agreement that The 700 Club has with ABC Family is in place at WSHM-LP Channel 67 in Springfield, Massachusetts. WSHM-LP was owned by Trinity Broadcast Network until around 2003, when it was purchased by Merideth and relaunched as "CBS TV 3 Springfield". Despite the CBS affiliation they still carry The 700 Club weekday mornings at 10AM. (Up until August it was on at 9AM, but on 8/24/09 WSHM-LP and its parent station WFSB/3 in Hartford picked up Regis & Kelly). Trinity Broadcast Network is another one of the many channels that shows The 700 Club.

 

[DToTheJ]

Similar to how WTXX in your neck of the woods, Marc, airs a church service every morning at 10 AM.

In any event, "The 700 Club" has at least one thing in common with some of the other programming that now airs on "ABC Family Channel" -- it's not really what I'd call good family viewing...

And just wait until they air that new Bristol Palin show! :-X

 

[MarcB]

Similar to how WTXX in your neck of the woods, Marc, airs a church service every morning at 10 AM.

I was talking to them yesterday on Facebook about dumping that in the fall when they're gonna be making other changes including dumping the FOX 61 News at 10 simulcast and possibly reducing the 5 hour morning infomercial block that airs 4AM-9AM. I suggested sending the service down to MY TV 9 in New Haven they told me I should contact MY TV 9's management about sending Sonia Baghdaddy to WTXX and in Return MY TV 9 gets the church service. ;D