the FAMILY in ABC Family

[David in Manassas]

Watched the new Dance Fever Sunday night with my young teens Sunday on ABC Family. After one male break dancer performed, the female "celebrity" judge when asked how she would rate the dancer said, "All I can tell you is that my panties are soaked"....to which the male "celebrity" judge said "she's not even wearing panties".

My teens just looked at me...

Thanks ABC....for another fine FAMILY show....on ABC FAMILY...

oh yea...the following show was about a guy moving into a girl's appt...another fine FAMILY show....

Guess I don't get the XYZ.......

David in Manassas

 

[KNWVIKING]

I usually try to defend a lot of the things Disney does, tend to be a "glass half full" kinda person. But there is just no excuse for this. I'm sure it made for an awkward moment or two with your teenagers.

 

[mrsR123]

I agree whole-heartedly! We just got back from a week at FW and watched a lot of Disney TV--and DIsney ads-- waiting for kids to settle down; what the heck is this "XYZ on ABC Family" crap? I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near this junk!

 

[Peter Pirate]

But not for the usual reasons. I look at ABC & Family as ABC and Family...Not Disney. At least not Disney first and foremost, therefore, I expect them to act no better than any other network...Which means ratings first...

Too bad for your awkward situation...I've had a couple myself, but it just makes me more diligent in previewing what is on. The Disney Channel still allows me quite a bit of safety but beyond that it's all parenting in his cesspit of a world...

 

[EUROPA]

I think the name "ABC Family" is very misleading to what the content of the channel is.

I pulled this from the website.

Distributed in over 85 million homes, ABC Family offers diverse programming that reflects and resonates with today’s families. The channel features original series and movies, major theatrical releases, and repurposed programming from the ABC Television Network. ABC Family offers a variety of programming appealing to all ages in the household - with an emphasis on adults ages 18-49.

 

[Disneymoon04]

Disney or no, the "family" name needs to go. It seems to be a place to re-run their crappy shows... I've seen re-runs of 'Whose Line is it anyway' and 'The Practice' on a Saturday afternoon. Both great shows but definitely not family entertainment. I wouldn't let a child under 16 watch that channel.

 

[Another Voice]

Hmmm….

I wonder what kind of marketing line they can come up with to get the point across…

"ABC Family – We're Disney, But We're Naughty!"

"ABC Family – You Have to Watch It With Your Kids"

"ABC Family – Just As Offensive as the Next Guy"

"ABC Family – Come On! Your Kids Are Old Enough To Learn About This Stuff!"

"ABC Family – Now With 50% More Reality Programming!"

"ABC Family – Bringing Awkward Situations into Everyone's Home"

"ABC Family – We Haven't Put Drew Carey in a Thong Yet!"

"ABC Family – Another Broadcasted Cesspit for Your Family"

"ABC Family - Five billion bucks to recapture the audience we lost with just plain old ABC".

"ABC Family – One More Channel to Skip Over On The Way To The Good Stuff!"

 

[Planogirl]

This makes no sense! Fox Family had an amusing little show that I thought did fairly well in the ratings called Scariest Places on Earth. In this show a family would be sent to some "scary" place to spend the night and perform assigned tasks.

ABC Family supposedly killed the show because it wasn't family friendly enough. Huh?

 

[Peter Pirate]

PG I don't think ANYTHING about tv land makes sense...

"ABC Family. We haven't put Drew Carey in a thong yet."

This is so disturbing on so many levels! But first and foremost I have to wonder why you're even thinking this thought Mr. Another!

 

[crusader]

I don't know what the right thing to do here is.

Kids still identify with Ozzie - just not the one that was married to Harriett. Where does that leave the family tv programming?

They love the fact that Tom Greene disrupted and disturbed his parents.

Which demographic should Disney successfully shoot for here?
Spongebob? Father Downing Mysteries? RealWorld? or Alias?

The Brady Bunch is dead!

 

[Peter Pirate]

I agree crusader...It is a very tough choice and an important one if they wish to be successful.

I can see the point that the word "family" maybe should be removed as it really doesn't mean anything in its current context and could be misleading to some degree.

I do think it important to not confuse Disney with its arms, as well...

 

[Planogirl]

I wonder if a good family sitcom couldn't make it nowadays? I keep hearing that kids are discovering the Cosby Show and really enjoying it. Of course, the way things are even Roseanne is clean compared to many of the current shows.

I just want something to be FUNNY! Those are hard to find nowadays.

 

[KNWVIKING]

Someone clarify "Family" for me.

Are we saying Family mean it's just one of many channels in the Disney lineup ? If so,why not call it Disney Family ?

Or is it intended to mean the programing is designed and suitable for the entire family to watch ? This is the text I have always taken it to mean.

Or is there another meaning ?

Personally, I think the "soaked panties" comment is inappropriate regardless of whatever "Family" is intended to mean.

 

[d-r]

I think it is just obscene and shouldn't even be on free tv, and I'm not a prude. It just is over the line of common good taste.

I really don't get the ABC family thing. I mean, I know the name "family" is in there because it started as "The Family Channel" then "Fox Family" when Fox bought it, so they want to keep the family part for name recognition. But goodness, aren't they even thinking of what that name says?

The channel is so weird to me. They've kept the 700 hundred club on there forever. Planogirl- that scary show WAS cute.

But what I was trying to say was, I don't really understand the reasoning behind the whole thing. The whole point of it. I mean, I think it has to do with the idea of content providers vs. the cable companies. That companies like Disney, Viacom, AOL Time Warner, etc. are trying to build big portfolios of lots of channels so that they can have more leverage in negotiating with the cable companies. So the theory being if Disney has four espns, 2 disneys, and so on, they will have more power to negotiate better deals with the cable companys. I don't think the point of it was just to re-purpose ABC shows, I think it was for this sort of leverage, a whole greater than the sum of the parts sort of thing. But good grief, pay attention to the parts. 5 billion dollars. good lord.

 

[crusader]

The picture is much bigger here and I haven't had an opportunity to really get my arms around it but here's what I do know so far (hopefully someone can fill in the gaps):

The cable industry in my area is a monopoly by the name of "Comcast". (for those unfamiliar - there is a recent article on a thread here on the boards which rumors that they are presently vying for ABC) Comcast is growing by seemingly endless leaps and bounds having consumed all the smaller providers and expanded their demographic across state lines. They also compete directly with the ISP's and are growing incredibly in terms of their internet cable business.

Recently Comcast has taken root in California following their most recent acquisition of AT&T broadband. .http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/4549887.htm They are now fully operational on both the East and West Coast. One of the main reasons they are so fluid is because they get money from every single household user very similar to a utility.

Meanwhile, the networks are controlled by old federal regulations which prohibit them from directly charging the consumer for their product. If I unplug my cable I will still be able to get network television stations using an analog receiver. (ie - an antennae)
That means, the must rely on advertising revenue to finance their programming.

Cable stations are a way to mitigate this situation. If I were a network - I'd want to own as many cable stations as possible in order to expand my business and tap into that lucrative consumer revenue stream. This is where my knowledge ends - because I have yet to determine how the cable companies work with the station providers in terms of who charges whom for what?

My bigger concern is: that a Cable company would be able to purchase a network. If I am not mistaken, the Gov't holds certain leasing rights to the airwaves which keeps the regulations in place. This may be a digital vs analog loophole

 

[PamOKW]

I thought I was the only one whose eyebrows went up when a show about men and women who are strangers moving in together was "ABC Family" programming. Hard to believe this started out as Pat Robertson's network before it was sold several times.

Crusder, you are on the right track, sort of. The cable company from which you buy your service and the cable company (distribution) that actually provides the programming (the "station") are sometimes one and the same. And, the four broadcast networks ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX all also have cable channels and/or also own cable distribution systems. The local cable companies are also dwindling down into just a few mammoth companies....who are also now becoming the providers of cable internet access as well. Some of the cable companies are also looking into buying the satellite TV companies, too.

Soon there will be just one big CABLE COMPANY controlling it all.

There are two types of cable networks. Basic cable networks sell advertising (ESPN, TLC, etc., etc.) Premium networks (HBO, Showtime, etc.) do not sell advertising but charge a premium from the subscribers (that is collected by the local cable company who also takes a cut). The basic cable networks are also paid money from the cable systems that carry them because they allow the cable companies to also sell advertising and "cut-in" to their programming (like a local TV affiliate). Some local cable companies look to recoup this cost from the subscribers with their pricing.

Back in the 1970's when cable was just catching on, CBS had to divest itself of its cable interests. The company that was formed was Viacom. Fast forward to the late 1990's when cable regulation is a thing of the past and a lot of twists and turns have CBS and Viacom as one company again.

***Updated 7/30 - I corrected the premium cable network to HBO -- must have had ABC on the mind. Sorry.****

 

[DisLUV]

Well I am suprised that i came across this today. I was just thinking about ABC family on my way home.

I remember when my parents first got Primestar and it had the Family Channel (no FOX and no ABC) and I really enjoyed it (just an opinion). I enjoyed most of the shows and REALLY liked the 25 days of christmas that it had every year.

Well years went by and I moved out to my own place and found out that FOX had bought the channel that I liked soo much. I thought that I would not like what they would do to it but they actually kept it pretty much intact. They had alot of the same programs (25 days of chirstmas) and added a few teen things. They even added some new stuff that I liked, 13 days of Halloween, Worlds scariest places and so on.

Moving closer to today I go the news that ABC (disney) had bought the channel that I had grown to love again. At first I thought hmmmm ABC is owned by disney and I LOVE disney so YAHOOOOOOO.

Well after all that let me say that I have not liked what I have seen. While I like some of the shows they have I like them as an Adult not as a child and definately not as watching with my wife and my daughter. I mean I love Whose Line but it is not usually familiy watching.

So anyway, this may be the loooongest post I have every made so this must be something about this that gets to me.

BUT I AM NOT CHANGING CARS!!!

 

[Tekneek]

The Family Channel was a good channel. To say that Pat Robertson would do a better job with it today may be reaching. Remember, this is the man who recently said everyone should pray for a Supreme Court Justice to die or retire. He thinks planes were flown into the WTC and Pentagon because of homosexuals. The man is more controversial than probably all of ABC Family's programming for a year.

The soaked undergarments thing was completely out of hand and should have been edited out of the show. A show about unmarried people moving in together is not outlandish. It's pretty realistic. That happens everyday, even by (gasp) good people.

I wish Disney would shed ABC completely, and ABC Family with it. Cut back down to The Disney Channel, and maybe Toon Disney (if they can tweak the programming and do something about the large amount of commercials).

 

[crusader]

Interesting......

Thanks Pam for that very insightful post. Of course it did raise several more questions which you may or may not be able to answer:

From what I'm gathering Comcast (my cable company) also acts as a cable distributor for certain channels plus they get to broker advertising to other distributors.

Disney owns: (feel free to add here)

a broadcast network: ABC - all advertising revenue

two basic cable networks: ESPN and ABC Family - again all advertising revenue

one premium network: The Disney Channel - no advertising - customer pays.

Not sure what "toon disney" is or where it fits in.

So if I pay $47/mo for "basic cable" - which is not even the "digital cable" now being offered - ALL of that money stays with Comcast? The cable networks get a stipend to allow Comcast to broker advertising for them but that really isn't the service revenue I pay in. So the reliance on advertising remains the main source of funding whether you are a cable or broadcast network.

 

[Tekneek]

Disney, like all other 'basic cable'-type channels, charges the cable company to carry them (the exception is that the shopping channels often pay to be carried). The Disney Channel was once considered a 'premium' service and customers paid extra for that. Some time back they dropped it down into the basic cable area. There are carriage agreements signed for each of these channels and they are paid a certain fee per subscriber. The contracts usually stipulate that the fee rises by a certain percentage each year. The Disney Channel did not give the providers a discount when they lowered the quality of programming and started inserting promo breaks into every program. One day, likely within the next 5 years or so, you will see regular commercials in those breaks unless somebody else gets control of it. ESPN and their suite of channels usually raise their carriage fees as much as 20% annually. Disney also attaches riders to the renewals, such as "you must carry SoapNet, or forget carrying ESPN."

They all do it that way. Comcast may eat up a substantial portion of that bill you pay, but all of the programming you get is not free for them.