ABC Family to become Freeform

stevehousse

Well-Known Member
I think the name change is stupid lol I just don't really like it.im sure they could have come up with better name. Hopefully they will still do 13 days of Halloween and 31 days of Xmas in the coming years or will they stray away because it's too kiddy for they new demographic...
 

DisneyPrincess5

Well-Known Member
I think the name change is stupid lol I just don't really like it.im sure they could have come up with better name. Hopefully they will still do 13 days of Halloween and 31 days of Xmas in the coming years or will they stray away because it's too kiddy for they new demographic...
I agree about the name and also hope they don't take all the fun family type stuff away! Sad to see it rebranded.
 

French Quarter

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I think the name change is stupid lol I just don't really like it.im sure they could have come up with better name. Hopefully they will still do 13 days of Halloween and 31 days of Xmas in the coming years or will they stray away because it's too kiddy for they new demographic...

I'm not sure it's a great name either. But I can see why they are making some changes.
 

dvitali

Active Member
I think the name change is stupid lol I just don't really like it.im sure they could have come up with better name. Hopefully they will still do 13 days of Halloween and 31 days of Xmas in the coming years or will they stray away because it's too kiddy for they new demographic...
From the advertisement post cards that was handed out, yes they are doing both the holloween and christmas marathon, bringing back another season of pretty little liar, and some horror shows named stitchers and shadowhunters
 

stevehousse

Well-Known Member
Stichers sucks! It'll be interesting what new programs they bring on as PLL basically carries the whole network right now...
 

prberk

Well-Known Member
Any chance that my wishes come true and Pat Robertson & his ilk get booted off the network?
And yet, The 700 Club STILL manages to get air time on ABC Family.
LOL that is the most random show on that channel. Its been on there for ions.

Pat Robertson and his ilk are the reason that the Family Channel exists. They built it from the ground up, and when they sold it, they retained the right to air their few hours of programming. It is my understanding that the contract was fairly ironclad and would supercede subsequent sales. They essentially sold the programming rights to most of the channel, retaining those few hours to focus on their core programming.

I think a little history is in order:

Pat Robertson originally had religious programming on a local independent station (Channel 27) in Norfolk, VA. At some point he bought the station (may have come first). It had "The 700 Club" and mostly reruns of family shows like "The Brady Bunch," "The Andy Griffith Show," and "I Love Lucy" throughout the seventies and into the eighties.

As cable TV started expanding, Channel 27 saw the same opportunity to grew through cable that was seen by Atlanta's WTBS Channel 17 and Chicago's WGN Channel 9 and New York's WOR. All three were independent stations that had found a national audience on cable, showing primarily reruns and sports. Pat Robertson wisely saw the growing cable industry as a good place for his programming and his channel, and he saw his religious and family programming as a niche that could be filled. He had already had success in syndicating his station's flagship religious show, "The 700 Club," among a network of stations.

Eventually he rebranded his Channel 27, which already showed "The 700 Club," as the flagship of the Christian Broadcasting Network, and marketed it to cable providers as a religious channel with family content. It did well, especially with its family programming, especially sit-com reruns and family-friendly drama reruns. They built their headquarters and production facilities in Virginia Beach. They continued to produce "The 700 Club" and syndicate it throughout the world, and it helped fuel their growth in other areas (Regent University and Operation Blessing disaster relief programs, etc.).

Soon they rebranded it again as The Family Channel, focusing on its sitcoms and family-friendly programs, but also still showing the same "700 Club" that was syndicated, along with a few other CBN programs. They retained the CBN name for the religious programming, but called the rest of it The Family Channel programming.
The Family Channel found a following and soon had nearly 100% carriage rate among cable systems.

Over time they decided to focus on their core religious programming, but to sell the programming of the channel itself to another company. Their nearly 100% coverage rate allowed them to be very marketable to networks wanting a foothold without having to build from the ground up.

Fox bought it and rebranded it as Fox Family. It was a smooth transition that kept the family bent of the programming but changed it up a bit. Later Disney/ABC bought it, and seemed intent to move some of the family programming, such as Boy Meets World reruns, there from the Disney Channel as they started to aim The Disney Channel squarely at 'tweens only. They named it ABC Family. Still a "Family Channel," but perhaps having a little identity crisis as a sister network to the primary channel of the world's most prominent family-themed company. They did not seem to know how to market it, I think. Both Fox and ABC/Disney had bought it as a channel with complete coverage, so they could immediately have a good return on investment without having to build from the ground up. But that quick access has a cost.

All along the way, it seems that CBN has retained the rights to certain hours of the programming. I do not think that they ever sold it all. It may even be a long-term lease. It seemed to make sense as long as someone ran it as a family channel, but it will seem at odds to this new programming. But I still think that the religious programming is there to stay, and was never a part of the sale. They may actually lease the channel from CBN. I noticed some time ago that when they advertised for jobs, ABC family showed the location to be Virginia Beach. That was few years ago but was telling.

So, there appears to be a relatively iron-clad agreement that keeps the religious programming there. I sometimes wonder if folks at CBN, Robertson included, ever wish they had never sold the programming time. I know that there was an audience for the reruns, and might be again, as TV Land has come and gone with them, and other channels like Hallmark and MeTV and AntennaTV continue to show. Who knows? But it is true, from media reports, that ABC/Disney bought into with an understanding that CBN retain certain hours. It is also true that ABC/Disney knew that at the time, and considered the "cost" to them to gain immediate access to a channel already in so many homes.

In some ways it is in part because of Pat Roberston's vision in the beginning that we have this channel, whatever it becomes. Ironic in some ways also.

I do think that, even in the new demographic aim, that it can still be a variant of "Family" programming. Twenty-somethings might still be finding themselves, but they also care for people and develop families of their own. They are not all neurotic, self-centered, or slackers as millennials are sometimes characterized. They also tend to enjoy re-runs of sitcoms from their youth or before. Some are also no doubt religious.

It all kind of reminds me that the whole "market segmentation" approach to TV can have its limits. Not all teenagers fall out for Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber; some actually like classical or blugrass or blues music, or love spending time with their famllies, maybe even at a sprawling Disney resort in Florida marketed to families with young children. We'll see how it all turns out. But despite marketers' best intentions to segment everything by demographic, sometimes people get a share of other things, too, and sometimes build on what came before.
 
Last edited:

disney4life2008

Well-Known Member
Pat Robertson and his ilk are the reason that the Family Channel exists. They built it from the ground up, and when they sold it, they retained the right to air their few hours of programming. It is my understanding that the contract was fairly ironclad and would supercede subsequent sales. They essentially sold the programming rights to most of the channel, retaining those few hours to focus on their core programming.

I think a little history is in order:

Pat Robertson originally had religious programming on a local independent station (Channel 27) in Norfolk, VA. At some point he bought the station (may have come first). It had "The 700 Club" and mostly reruns of family shows like "The Brady Bunch," "The Andy Griffith Show," and "I Love Lucy" throughout the seventies and into the eighties.

As cable TV started expanding, Channel 27 saw the same opportunity to grew through cable that was seen by Atlanta's WTBS Channel 17 and Chicago's WGN Channel 9 and New York's WOR. All three were independent stations that had found a national audience on cable, showing primarily reruns and sports. Pat Robertson wisely saw the growing cable industry as a good place for his programming and his channel, and he saw his religious and family programming as a niche that could be filled. He had already had success in syndicating his station's flagship religiious show, "The 700 Club," among a network of stations.

Eventually he rebranded his Channel 27, which already showed "The 700 Club," as the flagship of the Christian Broadcasting Network, and marketed it to cable providers as a religious channel with family content. It did well, especially with its family programming, especially sit-com reruns and family-friendly drama reruns. They built their headquarters and production facilities in Virginia Beach. They continued to produce "The 700 Club" and syndicate it throughout the world, and it helped fuel their growth in other areas (Regent University and Operation Blessing disaster relief programs, etc.).

Soon they rebranded it again as The Family Channel, focusing on its sitcoms and family-friendly programs, but also still showing the same "700 Club" that was syndicated, along with a few other CBN programs. They retained the CBN name for the religious programming, but called the rest of it The Family Channel programming.
The Family Channel found a following and soon had nearly 100% carriage rate among cable systems.

Over time they decided to focus on their core religious programming, but to sell the programming of the channel itself to another company. Their nearly 100% coverage rate allowed them to very marketable to networks wanting a foothold with having to build from the ground up.

Fox bought it and rebranded it as Fox Family. It was a smooth transition that kept the family bent of the programming but changed it up a bit. Later Disney/ABC bought it, and seemed intent to move some of the family programming, such as Boy Meets World reruns, there from the Disney Channel as they started to aim The Disney Channel squarely at 'tweens only. They named it ABC Family. Still a "Family Channel," but perhaps having a little identity crisis as a sister network to the primary channel of the world's most prominent family-themed company. They did not seem to know how to market it, I think. Both Fox and ABC/Disney had bought it as a channel with complete coverage, so they could immediately have a good return on investment without having to build from the ground up. But that quick access has a cost.

All along the way, it seems that CBN has retained the rights to certain hours of the programming. I do not think that they ever sold it all. It may even be a long-term lease. It seemed to make sense as long as someone ran it as a family channel, but it will seem at odds to this new programming. But I still think that the religious programming is there to stay, and was never a part of the sale. They may actually lease the channel from CNN. I noticed some time ago that when they advertised for jobs, ABC family showed the location to be Virginia Beach. That was few years ago but was telling.

So, there appears to be a relatively iron-clad agreement that keeps the religious programming there. I sometimes wonder if folks at CBN, Robertson included, ever wish they had never sold the programming time. I know that there was an audience for the reruns, and might be again, as TV Land has come and gone with them, and other channels like Hallmark and MeTV and AntennaTV continue to show. Who knows? But it is true, from media reports, that ABC/Disney bought into with an understanding that CBN retain certain hours. It is also true that ABC/Disney knew that at the time, and considered the "cost" to them to gain immediate access to a channel already in so many homes.

In some ways it is in part because of Pat Roberston's vision in the beginning that we have this channel, whatever it becomes. Ironic in some ways also.

I do think that, even in the new demographic aim, that it can still be a variant of "Family" programming. Twenty-somethings might still be finding themselves, but they also care for people and develop families of their own. They also tend to enjoy re-runs of sitcoms from their youth or before. Some are also no doubt religious.

It all kind of reminds me that the whole "market segmentation" approach to TV can have its limits. Not all teenagers fall out for Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber; some actually like classical or country music, or love spending time with their famllies, maybe even at a sprawling Disney resort in Florida marketed to families with young children. We'll see how it all turns out. But despite marketers' best intentions to segment everything by demographic, sometimes people get a share of other things, too, and sometimes build on what came before.

Nice history lesson. I had the slightest idea but it makes perfect sense. Sort of like The Dolphin and Swan hotel at the world.
 

MaxsDad

Well-Known Member
I had once read, on the internet mind you, that in addition to the 700 club airtime, the sale contract also stipulated the channel had to have the name "family " in it. Which is why it has stuck this long in spite of the fact that the content has drifted farther and farther away. When I saw the name change it makes me wonder if that clause has expired or what?
 

prberk

Well-Known Member
Nice history lesson. I had the slightest idea but it makes perfect sense. Sort of like The Dolphin and Swan hotel at the world.

Good analogy.

I had once read, on the internet mind you, that in addition to the 700 club airtime, the sale contract also stipulated the channel had to have the name "family " in it. Which is why it has stuck this long in spite of the fact that the content has drifted farther and farther away. When I saw the name change it makes me wonder if that clause has expired or what?

That would seem mysterious to me, too.
 

prberk

Well-Known Member
I had once read, on the internet mind you, that in addition to the 700 club airtime, the sale contract also stipulated the channel had to have the name "family " in it. Which is why it has stuck this long in spite of the fact that the content has drifted farther and farther away. When I saw the name change it makes me wonder if that clause has expired or what?

By the way, did you ever sit back and wonder why they went that route (farther and farther away from family programming) to begin with? I know people like to be "edgy," and Hollywood is clearly full of folks that want to make "edgy" programming; but it does seem like the marketplace is really, really ripe (if Disney Channel is stuck in 'tween mode) for a place to show shows like "Boy Meets World" and "Home Improvement" and "Full House" -- and I don't just mean these reruns (which remain popular among young adults), but I mean also new shows like them, and even fun family films. Look at the success of Potter movies on ABC Family, and look at the popularity today of "Back to the Future." It is nostalgic, but still clean, fun, and well-liked. Look also at the aforementioned success of Halloween and Christmas movie blocks on this channel.

It just seems to me that the marketers of this channel almost have disdain for the family product that can be their mainstay, and when marketed successfully hits a nerve with a good portion of the public. Programs that truly are for the whole family to enjoy. The key would be marketing with enthusiasm.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Programs that truly are for the whole family to enjoy.

The problem is that many people these days can't agree on what is considered "family entertainment". Years ago, that meant programing for 6 to 60, meaning entertaining enough to be engaging for all ages inbetween without foul language, graphic violence or explicit s-e-x.

Now we have all these thin-skinned watchdog groups who pounce on anything remotely offensive and who have poisoned the term to mean safe for toddlers, and anything that fails to be so is bad (see direct quote from article: "consumers who weren't familiar with ABC Family viewed the cabler as one that targeted parents with small children."). Such programing has limited appeal, and trying to please everyone while remaining both relevant to changing tastes and values is a difficlt task. It's just much easier to stick with segemented programing.

Movies like "Back to the Future" and "Hocus Pocus" (most popular of the channel's Halloween block) and both very much PG, and the second was criticised by Leonard Maltin upon its initial release as being an insut to the company's brand of family entertainment! I can only imagine the social media led backlash that would ensue if these, or other titles of the time, were made today with a similar marketing approach.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom